This record contains three reaction-to-fire test reports for the ACP-PE with Firebreak Testing Series, commissioned through Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV), together with associated shortened videos. Each video relates to a corresponding test report and is intended to complement the written report. CSV is the Victorian Government program responsible for addressing combustible cladding risk in Victoria and improving industry understanding of the fire performance of cladding products identified on buildings referred to the program. ACP-PE refers to an aluminium composite panel (ACP) product. ACP generally consists of two thin aluminium sheets bonded to a central core material. In this context, PE refers to an ACP panel with a predominantly polymeric, non-flame-retardant core. The tested ACP-PE panels were described as having a near-100% polyethylene core, with chemical analysis identifying approximately 96–97% polyethylene and a small proportion of inert material. The testing forms part of CSV’s broader cladding product fire testing program. CSV’s testing is scenario-based and evidence-driven, with tests tailored to specific building configurations, realistic fire exposures and wall-system components observed across CSV’s portfolio, rather than relying solely on a product rating, classification or pass/fail outcome. The CSV website describes this series as exploring the concept of a horizontal firebreak using a burner source in general accordance with BS 8414-2, with two scenarios developed to inform decision-making for sprinkler-protected buildings where retained combustible cladding may be separated by a non-combustible break. The series assessed whether vertical fire spread and heat generated by ACP-PE cladding could pass, or “leap”, beyond a singular non-combustible floor break and ignite ACP-PE cladding in a retained cladding cluster above. The tested façade systems incorporated ACP-PE panels, solid aluminium panels or substitute aluminium screening/louvres, autoclaved aerated concrete panels, fire-rated plasterboard, steel framing, side protrusions, recessed wall sections and related façade components. Three tests were conducted across two firebreak scenarios: Scenario 1 - Fire from the floor below the firebreak:Test 1 assessed a 3 MW BS 8414-2 fire source directly below a singular floor break, representing a fire breaking out of a lower-floor window. The purpose was to determine whether heat from the lower fire could pass the firebreak, ignite the ACP-PE cladding cluster above, and generate sufficient heat to affect the lowest window level of the upper retained cladding cluster. Scenario 1 - Repeat with added flashing cap:Test 2 repeated Scenario 1, with a flashing cap introduced between the ACP-PE and the solid aluminium panel on the floor below. This test assessed whether that additional detail influenced fire spread or heat transfer across the break. Scenario 2 - Fire originating within the retained cladding cluster:Test 3 assessed a fire originating within the retained ACP-PE cladding cluster, equivalent to a fire breaking out on the fourth floor of a retained six-floor cladding cluster. This scenario examined whether vertical fire spread and heat generated by ACP-PE could pass the singular floor break and ignite cladding on the next retained cladding cluster above. This scenario assumes that flame and heat from cladding three or more floors below the firebreak do not significantly increase flame height at the firebreak. The reports and videos provide a technical record of the tested ACP-PE façade systems under the specific BS 8414-2 firebreak scenarios. They describe the test setup, fire source, façade geometry, installation details, instrumentation locations, temperature measurements, visual observations, photographic evidence, post-test damage and chemical analysis results. The testing also links to CSV’s Protocols for Mitigating Cladding Risk (PMCR), particularly the sprinkler-related sections in Parts D and E, which should be read together with these reports to better understand the rationale and basis for the test scenarios. The reports should not be read as standalone certification, compliance confirmation, or a universal assessment of ACP-PE products, firebreaks or wall systems. Rather, they provide practical, test-based evidence of how the tested façade arrangements performed under defined BS 8414-2 firebreak scenarios. The findings can support broader risk evaluation and decision-making for materially similar façade or firebreak configurations, provided that relevant differences in installation, geometry, cladding continuity, cavity arrangement, fixing details, sprinkler assumptions and fire exposure conditions are carefully considered.