Hi @mostapha. This is my personal opinion, but, I think that at the moment daylight performance is just quantitatively measured and quite in a vague way if you ask me. Adding other concerns, such as circadian lighting, starts driving us to explore qualitative data or other metrics that would add an incredible value to our analysis.
I personally disagree with the thresholds of 300luxes and so on that we have to design for constantly. If we consider only quantitively, yes, we need that number, but then you conduce surveys and see that the perception of that amount of luxes vary a lot depending on the quality. I personally performed a survey for my dissertation in which people was feeling having enough light with 100 lux and not enough with above 400lux, and that was depending on the quality. Sadly I didn’t have the tools to properly measure these facts more than my opinion. And I know circadian lighting does not measure quality, but I think it increases the value of the analysis and pushes in the right direction.
For the question if we would use it if it was not for WELL certification my answer is yes. I would totally apply it to analyse buildings for sensitive people, like hospitals, care homes for people with dementia, nurseries, schools… maybe not so much for regular office buildings or houses, but yes for areas with more strict or sensitive requirements, in which, by the way, we cannot apply WELL yet.