As I keep saying, that definition could apply to almost any collection of related electrical items, of which the one you are mentioning is but one.
And as I keep saying, whilst that is true it is
not unreasonable or senseless to regard a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it as an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes.
In fact, I would say that to insist that it cannot possibly have been the intention of the people who wrote BS 7671 that a CU and all its devices and final circuits was an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes is devoid of reason.
As above, of the many possible guesses/speculations about the 'intended meaning', your view differs from mine, and that of a good few others.
I am not going to let you get away with that.
You said
I suspect that, despite the way it ended up being worded, the actual intent was that 530.3.4 should apply to CUs/DBs that were fed by a single phase, with an upstream fuse ≤100A protecting that phase, and under the control of ordinary persons. However, that's not what it says.
Saying "
As above, of the many possible guesses/speculations about the 'intended meaning', your view differs from mine, and that of a good few others" is absolutely not a valid response to me saying "
Secondly you have spent the last few days and countless posts arguing for an intent which conflicts with that".
What my opinion is is of no relevance whatsoever to the fact that you really have spent the last few days and countless posts arguing that the intent of BS 7671 is different to what you said above is what you suspect the intent was.
As you have said more than once, the definition of "electrical installation" could be applied to almost any collection of related electrical items. But that means that it could be applied to a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it. That means that a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it could undoubtedly be called an "installation" with no conflicts with the definition.
You have a definition which makes each of your CUs an installation.
You have the circumstantial evidence of an
Electrical Installation Condition Report expecting to be applied to only one CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it.
You suspect that the intention was indeed that 530.3.4 should apply to each of your CUs individually.
Frankly it beggars belief that anybody would at that point seek to create a different "intention" which disadvantaged them.