Assemble field history, soil and tissue tests, variety data and trial evidence into a sourced pack, checked against the nutrient plan and the label's rotational restrictions — the agronomist advises.
Pull the field's history, soil and tissue tests, planting records and the current nutrient plan.
02
Retrieve that variety or hybrid's own characteristics, and the trials and guidance behind each option.
Reason
03
Read each soil result against the lab's own extraction method and the calibration that index belongs to.
04
Track growth stage from planting and emergence records, and mark it inferred until confirmed in the field.
05
Balance the plan against nutrients removed by the yields actually harvested, not by assumed ones.
Decide
06
Stop an option that breaches a plan limit, a seasonal or buffer rule, or a herbicide plant-back interval.
07
Route thin, conflicting or single-trial evidence to the agronomist rather than presenting it as settled.
Out
08
Present each option with its sources, whose data each one is, and what the evidence does not cover.
09
Retain the sources read, the checks run, the version of each guideline and every agronomist correction.
→Product statement
The agent assembles, cites and checks. The recommendation to a grower is made by a qualified agronomist, and an option that fails a restriction check does not reach a grower.
Example workflow
One field question, end to end
AgentHuman
1Question openedA field, a crop and a question from the agronomist, the grower or the season's plan
2Field record assembledRotation and residual history, soil and tissue tests, planting and emergence records and the nutrient plan
3Evidence retrievedThat hybrid's own characteristics, the approved guidance and the trials behind each option, with their sources
4Restrictions checkedPlan limits, seasonal and buffer rules, and label rotational and plant-back intervals for the fields in scope
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — assembly, retrieval and the restriction checks finish before an agronomist is asked to read anything. A restriction conflict ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on restriction conflicts and how far the evidence reaches
No conflict, evidence holds
Reaches the agronomist ready to read.
Conflict or thin evidence
Reaches the agronomist stopped and flagged.
Agronomist
Reads the assembled record, the cited evidence and the checks that failed, then decides what to advise.
Accept · Correct · Send back for evidence
Advised — handed back▼
6Pack filed to the adviserWritten to the farm record only where write access and policy allow; the recommendation field stays empty
7Outcome evaluatedCitation accuracy, restriction-conflict recall, agronomist overrides and where evidence ran thin, by crop
Overrides
What the agronomist changes is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Recommending a product, a rate or a timing.
Signing or amending a nutrient management plan.
Clearing an application inside a seasonal or buffer restriction.
Overriding a label's rotational or plant-back interval.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Assemble field history, rotation, soil and tissue tests and planting records.
✓Retrieve variety characteristics, trial and extension evidence with their sources.
✓Check every option against plan limits, restrictions and plant-back intervals.
✓Stop a conflicting option and route thin evidence to the agronomist.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. The advice is not one of them.
Ordering options by what the deployer sells.
Confirming a growth stage without a field observation.
Treating a single trial as settled evidence.
Changing the evidence sources or the restriction rules.
Example output
One field question, annotated
Everything the agent presents is attached to the source it was read from.
Advisory pack · single field questionIllustrative example
Field and crop
Question
Soil test
Handed to
Confidence
Recommendation
Home Piece — maize, year two
Phosphorus rate for next crop
Olsen P
Agronomist — one option stopped
88%
Not made by the agent
As receivedThe record and the question as they arrived, with the lab's own method and date.
Evidence usedOlsen index, this labRemoval, three harvestsTwo multi-site trials
Why one option stoppedThe plant-back interval from last season's residual has not cleared for that crop.
ActionAcceptCorrectSend back for evidence
What the score decidesConfidence says how far the evidence reaches on this field, not how strong the advice is.
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 field questionFrom the agronomist, the grower or the season plan
03Assembly & citation
Apply the client's own agronomy
Use the farm's plan, the lab's own methods, the guidance you already accept and the trials behind each option.
01Approved path
Give the adviser the record first
History, tests, staging and evidence arrive assembled and sourced, so the visit starts on the question rather than on the paperwork.
02Human review
Catch the restriction on paper
A plan limit, a closed period or an unexpired plant-back interval is flagged before the option is advised, not after the crop is in the ground.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the sources read, whose data each one is, the guideline version, the checks run, the confidence and the agronomist's correction — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Farm records & FMSOperations Center · FieldView Trimble Ag · field-record APIs
Citation accuracy and restriction recall can look acceptable in total while a few crops and field types carry most of the thin evidence and most of the agronomist's corrections. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Minor and specialty crops
6.0%
3.5×
Review
Out-of-region trial evidence
4.6%
2.7×
Review
Residual carryover fields
3.3%
1.9×
Watch
Repeat fields, full history
1.2%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: lift in citation-and-restriction defect rate · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Evidence that did not hold is withdrawn from every pack
A citation that turns out not to support the claim is not closed when it is fixed for one field. It leaves the source set, and the packs that leaned on it are re-run.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Citation accuracy, restriction recall and override rate are read by crop and region, never in total.
02Diagnose
Walked back through the source read, the method used, the stage inferred and the check that did not fire.
03Improve
An agronomist re-approves the source set, method rule or restriction check before it ships, versioned.
04Verify
Proof is a set of held-out questions from that crop, the ones that failed included.
05Learn
That question is kept as a standing test, and the advisory runbook carries the changed rule.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Adding or dropping an evidence source changes what every later pack may cite, so an agronomist signs that change before it ships.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, records and methods, evidence and checks, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Farm-record, FMS and lab-report sources.
03Nutrient plans, restrictions and buffers.
04Soil and tissue calibration mapping.
05Field-record assembly and rotation history.
06Evidence sources and citation binding.
07Growth-stage tracking from planting records.
08Plant-back and seasonal restriction checks.
09Citation and restriction-recall tests.
10Thin-evidence and minor-crop slice testing.
11Agronomist review and record write-back.
12Observability, deployment 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 crop, one question typeProductionProduction farm-record integrationAdvancedMulti-crop / multi-region
Introduced at Pilot
Assembled field record✓✓✓
Cited evidence with its sources✓✓✓
Restriction and plant-back checks✓✓✓
Advice given by the agronomist✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Client plans and restriction rules—✓✓
Soil and tissue method handling—✓✓
Supplier-neutral evidence ranking—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Minor-crop and thin-evidence slices——✓
Multi-region and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on record and lab integrations, crops and regions in scope, restriction sources, evidence licensing, 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
01Field records, rotation history and your current nutrient plans→Field-record assembly, plan limits and restriction rulesWeek 1
02Soil and tissue reports with the lab and method behind each one→Soil and tissue method and calibration mappingWeek 2
03Access to your FMS, lab portals and label or restriction sources→Farm-record, FMS and lab-report source assessmentWeek 2
04The evidence you already accept, and what you will not cite→Evidence sources, licensing and citation bindingWeek 3
05Planting, emergence and field-observation records→Growth-stage tracking from planting and emergence recordsWeek 3
06Recommendations that went wrong, including the near misses→Evaluation suite, regression cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named agronomists to review and sign the advice→Agronomist review workflow, then pilot packs and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they occupy. Week 5 carries both the thin-evidence slice testing and the first packs an agronomist works from.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Field records, nutrient plans and restriction rules mappedW2Lab methods, source access and the first assembled recordW3Evidence retrieval, citation binding and stage trackingW4Restriction-conflict recall and citation-accuracy testingW5Minor-crop slices, first supervised packs and correctionsW6Agronomists advise from live packs, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandRestriction-conflict recall is tested in week 4, before any pack reaches an agronomist in week 5. No option goes to a grower on the agent's word at any point.
At the end of W6Packs have run alongside the way your agronomists work today and been read by the people who sign the advice, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Agriculture AI agent
Build an advisory copilot around your agronomists.
Show us the field records, plans and lab reports you work from, the evidence you already accept, and who signs a recommendation to a grower. We'll assemble one pack against your own sources and run a season of past recommendations back through the restriction checks.
