Tally every refrigerant addition against the appliance that took it under 40 CFR 84.106, run the repair and verification clocks, and hold the plan an authorized company official signs.
A charge is added, and § 84.106(d) starts the repair clock once the leak rate is crossed.
02
A leak rate is computed, and § 84.106(c)(2) sets a separate threshold per appliance type.
Reason
03
A repair closes, and § 84.106(d) wants a verification test inside it and another after it.
04
An inspection falls due, and § 84.106(g) fixes its frequency by appliance type and charge.
05
An appliance is newly installed above the size threshold, and § 84.108 wants detection on it.
Decide
06
An older appliance carries none, and § 84.108 sets 1 January 2027 for the ALD retrofit.
07
An ODS-charged chiller survives, and § 82.157 keeps it in part 82 on its own charge test.
Out
08
A covered building shuts its year, and NYC Admin. Code § 28-320.3.7 sets 1 May to file.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent holds the appliance ledger and runs the clocks. An authorized company official signs the plan and the chronic-leak report.
Example workflow
One appliance, charge to signature
AgentHuman
1Charge evidence receivedContractor service tickets, cylinder records, inspection reports or detection alarms
2Appliance context assembledThe appliance, the site it serves, the part it answers to and the day the charge went in
3Leak-rate evidence draftedThe appliance, the additions behind it, the clocks now running and completeness
4Controls appliedThreshold checks, charge-provenance checks, clock checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is signed at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the engineering lane opens at the completeness gate.
5DecisionSplits at the completeness gate
Evidence sufficient
Goes to the authorized company official to sign.
Anything thin
Adds an engineering read first.
Engineering review
The appliance is held with its additions, its clocks and the site it sits on.
Sign · Append evidence · Send to engineering
Signed — by an authorized company official▼
6Appliance and charge records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedLeak-rate accuracy, clock coverage, engineer corrections and what the read found
Corrections
Each engineering correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Signing a retrofit or retirement plan, § 84.106(l)(8).
Signing the chronic-leak report under § 84.106(m)(4).
Certifying a Local Law 97 report over a sealed attestation.
Electing to retrofit an appliance rather than repair it.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Hold the appliance register and the full charge each one carries.
✓Attribute every refrigerant addition to the service ticket behind it.
✓Compute the leak rate per appliance and run the repair.
✓Watch both reporting deadlines and flag the appliance.
Nothing here is signed or filed except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a repair in fact closed the leak.
Choosing the leak-rate calculation method.
Requesting an extension of the repair clock.
Changes to the appliance register or the charge ledger.
Example output
One appliance, annotated
Our maintenance triage agent works a tenant repair to a statutory clock; this record is what one refrigerant addition carried onto the ledger.
Ledger entry · single applianceIllustrative example
Appliance
Recorded as
Test
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
Refrigerant added, § 84.106(l)(2)
Read against the leak-rate threshold
Repair clock running
Technician service ticket
Held unsigned
The authorized company official, by name
As receivedTaken from the service ticket and the cylinder record — it reaches as far as those sources do.
What the record holdsService ticketCylinder recordFull-charge document
Why no signature hereWhether an appliance is repaired is a § 84.106 judgement, not a model output.
ActionSignAppend evidenceSend to engineering
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold an appliance picks up an engineering read before signature.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every additionFrom the appliance that took it
03Evidence
Where the evidence is used
Our environmental permit reporting agent owns Title V, which binds because you hold a permit, whereas § 84.106 is self-executing and equipment-attached, clocked by the act of adding refrigerant — different signer, different deadline type, different evidence — and the energy-utilities pages are utility-side, not building-side.
01Approved path
A leak starts a clock
A mixed estate sits under both parts at once: § 82.157 became ODS-only at 85 FR 14171, 10 April 2020, yet § 84.102 still defines a certified technician by reference to § 82.161.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
The § 84.112 fire-suppression reporting date is single-sourced and is withheld here, the road and intermodal transport-refrigeration carve-out was still only proposed on 26 May 2026 and does not reach buildings, no petition for review against the subpart C rule could be confirmed either way, and OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101 was not examined.
04Build an evidence trail
The appliance, the charge added to it and the official who signed stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Service and technician sourcesContractor tickets · cylinders Refrigerant addition records
Appliance and charge registerCMMS · asset register Full-charge documentation
Detection and monitoringALD alarms · calibration Audit and calibration logs
Agent
Energy and HVAC compliance
Reads the additions Computes the leak rate Holds for the official
Metering and filing systemsBenchmarking · utility feeds Consumption and filing records
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six valves between the model and the official
Six valves opened in turn, the last barely at all. Whatever still flows is set out in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to evidence assembly when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt and leak rules; 89 FR 82859, 11 October 2024 bound repair, inspection and records from 1 January 2026, and reclaimed refrigerant follows on 1 January 2029.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord each appliance, the additions behind it, the site it serves and every read of the ledger.Record
L3Official releaseHold the plan for an authorized company official under § 84.106(l)(8); the hold governs release, not whether a leak was ever repaired.Gate
L2Threshold guardrailsTest each appliance against § 84.106 as configured; § 84.108 puts detection on new large systems now and on 2017 to 2025 systems from 1 January 2027.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute a thin appliance file to an engineering read first; Local Law 97 survived preemption at the Court of Appeals on 22 May 2025.Require review
Model coreEvidence assembled — the appliance, the additions, the clocks and completeness
L1 – L2Test whether a leak rate may stand
L3Puts the signature in a person's hands
L4 – L5Keep the appliance and the charge behind it
L6Leaves the plan unsigned when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the leak rate that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the plan an inspector reads
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDid the ledger record what the appliance actually took?
E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right appliance, the right charge and the live register?
E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct appliance record and the correct ticket?
E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence appliances actually attract more engineering corrections?
E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific appliance types?
E6Business outcomeHow many appliances needed a correction before the official signed?
Floor — the ledger the owner answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each pinned to the stage where it first shows.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval1 mode
KK-03
Stale charge read
The full charge read is not the one now in the appliance.
Stage gathersThe appliance, the tickets, the charges and dates
02 · Reasoning2 modes
KK-04
Leak rate computed early
A rate is computed before the charge is complete.
KK-06
Wrong part applied
An ODS appliance is worked under part 84.
Stage proposesThe appliances, their clocks and completeness
03 · Tool / write2 modes
KK-02
Thin file passed forward
A file moves on without the engineering read.
KK-05
Bound to the wrong appliance
A charge is filed against the wrong unit.
Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output1 mode
KK-01
Signed, evidence unrecorded
The record shows a signature but not what supported it.
Stage returnsThe plan an official signs and an inspector reads
05 · Change / Version1 mode
KK-07
Silent clock regression
A configuration change moves the clock, not the charge.
Stage tracksModel, prompt, leak rules and ledger fields
Sev-1 · a plan signed on no service recordSev-2 · wrong charge reaches the ledgerSev-3 · source degrades, plan held unsigned
An appliance-level charge-provenance figure can read clean while industrial process refrigeration carries most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by appliance type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Industrial process refrigeration
8.8%
3.6×
Review
Commercial refrigeration
6.3%
2.6×
Review
ODS-charged legacy appliances
3.9%
1.6×
Watch
Comfort cooling chillers
1.6%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. comfort cooling baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an untracked recharge costs
A cycle closes when the untracked recharge is a regression case. That suite is what the next appliance assessed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on industrial process refrigeration.
02Diagnose
The chiller topped up twice in a season, on a ticket nobody totalled, is read back until one cause remains.
03Improve
The change ships numbered, and the appliances that forced it ride with it.
04Verify
Nothing releases while one touched appliance case is still red.
05Learn
It is retained for good, and the leak rules are amended in that same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next appliance is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, ledger assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Leak-rate-threshold and automation-boundary work.
02Service-ticket and cylinder sources.
03Appliance-to-threshold and clock-coverage mapping.
04Charge and addition ingestion.
05Appliance, charge and ticket binding.
06Completeness scoring and review routing.
07Official signing workflow.
08Asset-register system integration.
09Leak-rate and threshold cases.
10Guardrails and signing controls.
11Appliance-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne site, one yearProductionProduction compliance workflowAdvancedMultiple sites / portfolios
Introduced at Pilot
Ledger assembly to your appliances✓✓✓
Authorized official release✓✓✓
Charge-inventory baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by appliance—✓✓
Signing workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Service-ticket integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-site portfolios——✓
Cross-year evidence packs——✓
Large appliance estates——✓
Multi-regime deadline controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, appliance volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your appliances and the full charge each one carries→Appliance-register mapping and charge captureWeek 1
02Representative service, cylinder and inspection records→Record binding, threshold logic and the leak-rate baselineWeek 2
03Your calculation method under § 84.106(l)(3)→Threshold mapping, clock binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Service, cylinder and register-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Appliances you would not want audited→Leak cases and the evaluation runWeek 4
06What no service record may settle→Completeness scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07An authorized company official who may sign→Signing workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
These widths measure the work rather than the page, which is why a single week carries two phases.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Refrigerant workflow discovery, threshold mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the charge-provenance baselineW3Ledger assembly, clock logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, leak-rate cases and failure-mode testingW5Register integration, pilot appliances and targeted correctionsW6One compliance year run under the authorised official, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers only the weeks its own work is named for. Week five holds two because the work holds two.
At the end of W6When the appliance record validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Facilities AI agent
Build a refrigerant agent around the chiller that was topped up twice and totalled once.
Show us one appliance and the charge it took. An authorized company official signs the retrofit or retirement plan under § 84.106(l)(8) and the chronic-leak report under § 84.106(m)(4); in New York City a registered design professional certifies the filing.
