Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. Acceptance produces three effects at once. Which?
Transfer of custody, the start of the statutory warranties, and the end of construction cover on the accepted part
The three effects fall on the same day and follow three different logics, which is why one is always forgotten: custody is a question of fact, statutory warranties a question of law, the end of construction cover a question of insurance contract. The answer mentioning transfer of ownership is the most tempting and it is wrong: ownership of works follows the land and does not transfer at acceptance, which bears on custody and on accepting the works. The other answers list real consequences of the same moment, contractual rather than insurance ones, and they cause you to miss what shifts on the cover side.
Glossary entry →2. No acceptance certificate was signed. The owner took possession, paid the balance and has been operating for four months. Where does that leave things?
Tacit acceptance is inferred from behavior, therefore established after the fact: taking possession, paying the balance and operating often suffices to characterize it
The absence of a certificate reassures both parties and proves nothing: acceptance is inferred from a bundle of behaviors, and it is therefore established at the moment someone has an interest in dating it, that is, at the loss. The practical consequence is harsh, since the three effects of the previous question occurred without anyone deciding them, the end of construction cover included. The answer inventing a three-month period looks for a simple rule where there is an appraisal of facts, and believing only judicial acceptance is possible closes a door the judge himself walks through in finding tacit acceptance.
Glossary entry →3. An accepted production line is operated while the rest of the site continues. What becomes of its cover?
It leaves the erection cover in most wordings, and the operator's policy ordinarily excludes inherent defect: the gap sits exactly there
The two covers do not overlap at the precise point where the risk is sharpest: erection cover stops on what is accepted, and the operating policy does not take the inherent defect of new equipment never tested in service. That is the certification's first objective, knowing which policy responds on either side of that date, and it turns on a junction nobody organized. The answer imagining a sharing between the two policies describes what one would wish; the one speaking of an automatic switch assumes a continuity neither contract promises.
Glossary entry →4. An industrial complex is accepted in sections, the first eighteen months before the last. What follows for the maintenance periods?
There are as many periods as sections, and the first may have expired by the day the complex is first run at full load
The offset produces exactly what you do not want: the oldest section, the one that waited longest, ends up with no maintenance cover at the precise moment the complex is first run at full load. That is the certification's sixth objective, and it asks you to locate the most exposed section rather than to count periods. The answers running a single period, from either end, share the same flaw: they simplify a timetable the contract does not simplify, and they reassure in the wrong direction.
Glossary entry →5. Faced with a maintenance period, what is the useful question?
Which trigger it requires: a contractor's intervention, defective workmanship, or neither
The duration reads in a second and reassures; the trigger decides, and it varies entirely from one wording to the next. A period indemnifying only damage caused by a contractor's visit to clear a punch-list item covers almost nothing; another taking defective workmanship comes close to a performance guarantee; a third, rarer, requires neither. All three carry the same name and the same duration, and that is exactly why comparing durations between two quotes compares nothing.
Glossary entry →