Lunchtime update from the inquiry:

This morning we've been hearing why the cladding subcontractor believed the system was compliant. It appears he placed an extraordinary degree of trust in the people selling him the products. Here is a key exchange:

This was in relation to the use of Celotex RS5000 insulation, which was below the basic standard of 'limited combustibility'. It had a test which showed it could be used on high rises, but only in combination with non-combustible cement fibre cladding.

On Grenfell it was combined with an ACM product which burned like petrol. Why? Ray Bailey's (MD of cladding contractor Harley) evidence focuses on two things. First, he says Harley asked Celotex for an assurance that it was acceptable in the configuration proposed

He claims that they clearly confirmed it was.

Must stress, we await Celotex evidence on this point and are yet to see any documents or emails definitively confirming this either way. Celotex opening statement makes clear it believed it had no design role.

Second, he was apparently confused about what the phrase 'Class 0 throughout' meant in Celotex product literature. He thought this meant it was equivalent to limited combustibility. It did not. Richard Millet (counsel for inquiry) pretty scathing on this point:

Next the cladding panels themselves, Reynobond PE 55 - which of course burnt like solid petrol and are the primary reason the fire spread in the way that it did.

Mr Bailey's evidence is essentially that he was satisfied they had a Class 0 rating and asked no further Qs

This is a bit more complex, because while insulation was required to be limited combustibility, it's pretty clear that Class 0 was the required standard for cladding (see lengthy twitter threads passim).

And Reynobond had a certificate saying it was Class 0. But...

Mr Bailey was taken through this cert in detail and it's clear he didn't really question it. For example, it said the fire classification only applied to a specific colour and that the Class 0 test had been done on a 'fire retardant' grade of the panel:

Finally, we got a glimpse of a statement from Arconic witness Claude Wehrle which takes us back to revelations in week one that the Arconic panel was actually testing to the rockbottom 'Class E' fire rating in it's 'cassette form', as used on Grenfell:

Mr Bailey said today that he was "absolutely not" made aware of that by Arconic or any of its reps. He also says he was unaware of concerns in the market that cassette panels were performing worse in fires than 'riveted'