I obviously did not miss either of them.
I didn't miss that he had 'liked your post', but I obviously did not know when he had 'liked it' - note that it was 8 hours later that I saw, and responded to, your post.
I have no idea as to whether or not that is what he meant when he 'liked' your post. Only he could tell us.
However, on reflection, maybe I have been confusing things, and (probably) incorrectly implying that the error may not have been his. Yes, no matter how one interprets things, it is clear that the way in which he wired the garage CU was incorrect (although he believed it to be correct) in terms of the way the cores of the SWA were being used.
What I've been suggesting (since it seems the best way to make sense of the 'just found the JB' comment) is that, having found that the cores at the JB were being used differently from his expectations (per what he had assumed at the garage CU), he concluded that those connections (at the JB) were 'incorrect' and therefore 'corrected them' (leaving his connections at the garage CU unchanged).
If the above is the case (i.e. he has changed the connections at the JB) then, as I said, I think I would like to be reassured that the SWA armour is now/still connected to the CPC of the incoming cable.
Kind Regards, John
