The detail recorded in excavation fixes the overall dimensions of the building at 5.1 m by 3.4 m and gives some indications of the positions of upright timbers in the foundation trenches. Detail was fullest in the south-west quarter of the building where post settings were seen at slightly irregular intervals along the wall line, with an enlarged post at the corner. For the reconstruction, this pattern was regularised to some degree and extrapolated to the whole building to give a series of wall posts of oak 200mm in diameter, set with spacings of approximately 300mm between the posts. There are four corner posts and, in each long wall, a pair of larger posts (diameter approx. 300mm) in the centre for a door and window opening (see below). In addition to these posts, the long walls have six posts each and the side walls five each. There was no surviving evidence of wall height; for this reconstruction the walls are set at 1.8 metres above the ground. Panels in the spaces between the wall timbers are formed from short lengths of oak plank placed horizontally and slotted into grooves cut into the sides of the wall posts, as shown in the interior view. This walling system is designed to be renewable, so that a rotting plank at ground level can be cut out, the ones above dropped down and a new plank slotted in from the top. To allow for this, there is a modified form of wall plate, 100mm by 100mm in scross section which sits only on the outer halves of the wall posts, outside the line of the grooves. 100mm has been cut from the outer top of each wall post so that the top of the wall plate is flush with the top of the wall posts inside the wall line.

The main problems of interpretation concern entrances and roof supports. The excavator recorded a pair of more deeply-set posts mid-way along the east side wall and proposed that these formed the only entrance to the building. This interpretation poses a problem in that the space for the doorway between the posts is noticeably narrower than the equivalent space between the central west side posts. (It is impossible to give a precise figure on the widths because the archaeological evidence refers to the scoops cut into the foundation trenches to house the timbers and not to the positions of the timbers themselves; but careful measurement of the excavator's published drawing shows the spaces between the scoops on the east and west sides to be 400mm and 560mm respectively.) The wider spacing on the west side seems more appropriate for a door; but the excavator, noting that these posts were no more deeply set in the foundation trench than other wall posts, rejected this. The question arises as to whether the door need necessarily be supported on deeper-set posts. In the experimental reconstruction, the wider west wall spacing has been used for the door opening which has a width of 720mm and a window opening has been provided in the equivalent position on the east wall in the 600mm space between the posts. A door has been built from oak planks and hinged to the south side post. A rebate has been cut into the inner edge of the post to accommodate the door and hinges. The window opening is covered with a wooden shutter, pivoted at the top, which opens outwards.

There is no evidence from excavation of internal roof supports nor of any external bracing. It has been assumed for the experimental reconstruction that the roof load is transmitted, via the wall plate, through the wall posts. The excavator noted that a post mid-way along the south end wall could act as a support for a ridge post. This would allow for a simple roof structure with common rafters laid from the ridge to the wall plates. Side purlins could be fitted if end wall posts were in appropriate positions; and in this case the surviving evidence is not sufficient to confirm or reject that possibility. The ridge roof, however, does not account for the deeper setting of the corner posts which the excavator noted. (The excavator's ground plan drawing suggests also that the corner posts could also have been more massive than the other wall posts; but the reconstruction uses the same dimensions for the corner posts as the wall posts.) The experimental reconstruction uses a hipped roof on the argument that the corner posts were strengthened (by the deeper setting) to bear the weight and thrust of the diagonal roof timbers.

The roof constructed for the experimental building links the two pairs of posts mid way along the long walls with tie beams, 140mm by 120mm in cross section. At the middle of each of the tie beams a king post is set, topping at a height of 1.65 metres above the tie beams. A short ridge is supported by the two king posts, projecting slightly beyond these in both directions. Diagonals are laid from corner posts, where they are joined to the wall plate, to the ends of the ridge beam to form a hipped roof. The structural system is illustrated in an axononometric diagram. Common rafters formed from ash poles are notched on to the wall plate, in each case above one of the wall timbers, and fitted on to the ridge and hip beams. Willow wattling is tied to the rafters to provide the support for a straw thatch.

Neither the excavator's interpretation nor the experimental reconstruction fully accounts for the asymmetry at the middle of the long walls in this building. Most buildings of this period have a doorway at the middle of each long side wall, with the posts (which are sometimes more massive and deeper-set than other wall posts) pairing symmetrically across the building. Thirlings building P is an exception, and similar to Hartlepool VIII, in that the central side wall posts are not symmetrical, with one side being uncomfortably narrow to provide a door way; yet on both sides the central posts are set much deeper than other members on the wall line. This reconstruction of Hartlepool VIII proposes a doorway and a window opening and accounts for the strengthening (that is, deeper setting) of the central east wall posts by the extra loading of the roof assembly at the centre. But the central west wall posts are set no deeper than other wall posts and they have been subjected to the same loading as the east posts. The form of the roof as hipped rather than gable-ended offers a possible explanation for the strengthened corner posts.

Note: in this analysis, the alignment of the building is described as it applies to the original archaeological reference. In the Bede's World reconstruction, the alignment has been rotated approximately 90 degrees anti-clockwise. This is for considerations of site lay-out and has no bearing on the detail of the reconstruction.