Triage fault codes across a mixed fleet, plan the parts and the downtime, and hold the access entitlement behind each repair — a technician diagnoses and repairs, the owner decides what comes apart.
A code is thrown, and the agent pulls the machine, the hours and the faults that came before it.
02
A service interval falls due, and the agent schedules it against the field plan and the shelf.
Reason
03
A part is fitted, and the agent records provenance, specification and hours against a warranty dispute.
04
A repair is scoped, and the agent reads that brand's access terms for that date, staged as they stand.
05
A brand joins the fleet, and the agent maps what AEF-listed ISO 11783 conformance covers on that bus.
Decide
06
An emissions fault appears, and the agent holds it — clearing before repair is tampering, 40 CFR 1068.101.
07
A request is refused, and the agent logs it — Colorado's HB23-1011 has made that deceptive since 2024.
Out
08
A repair closes, and the codes before and after, the parts and the sign-off are retained on the machine.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent triages and schedules; a technician diagnoses and repairs, and the owner decides what comes apart mid-harvest.
Example workflow
One fault, code to bench
AgentHuman
1Fault code receivedTelematics feed, handheld read, operator report or a scheduled interval
2Machine context assembledHours, prior faults, parts on hand and access entitlement, each with its named source
3Work package draftedProbable cause, parts list, downtime estimate and confidence
4Controls appliedBrand-dictionary checks, entitlement checks that rank statute above MOU, emissions holds and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is cleared or repaired at any of them — the agent is triaging, and the technician's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the shop technician to review.
Low confidence
Adds a shop foreman read first.
Technician review
The package is held with its evidence, its entitlement status and the confidence.
Approve · Edit · Hold for a dealer call
Approved — released to the bench▼
6Maintenance records updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedCause accuracy, downtime against estimate, repeat faults and warranty outcomes
Edits
Every technician edit is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Diagnosing the fault or performing the repair.
Clearing an emissions-related inducement or fault.
Reprogramming or pairing a controller to a machine.
Deciding what leaves the field mid-harvest.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Read and triage fault codes; reading is not resetting.
✓Draft the work package, the parts list and the downtime.
✓Track entitlement per brand, machine, capability and date across the fleet.
✓Flag what a technician should weigh, and hold the package for the shop foreman.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of a technician.
Signing a repair off as complete.
Submitting or conceding a warranty claim.
Ruling a non-OEM part specification-equivalent.
Changes to service, entitlement or approval rules.
Example output
One fault code, annotated
Everything the agent triages is attached to the record it was drawn from.
Fault-triage output · single machineIllustrative example
Machine
Fault raised
Access status
Source of record
Confidence
Attribution
Class 9 combine, mixed fleet
Separator drive code repeats under load and cleared itself on the previous run
Read codes only
Telematics feed and shop log
89%
Named technician and shop ID
As receivedTaken from the telematics feed and the shop log — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
A fleet-level uptime figure can look acceptable while a few machine cohorts carry most of the rework behind it. Nestack reports the package-rework rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Off-brand machines in the fleet
6.2%
3.5×
Review
Controllers needing pairing
3.7%
2.1×
Review
Tier 4 aftertreatment faults
2.9%
1.7×
Watch
Same-brand machines on contract
1.9%
1.1×
Normal
Bar: package-rework-rate lift vs. the same-brand baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Every cycle ends with one more case
A cycle shuts when the missed failure is a case the next release has to catch. That suite is what the next machine watched is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Package-rework rate rises in a machine slice.
02Diagnose
The combine that threw a code nobody outside the dealer could read is walked back until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
The change is numbered on the way out, with the machines that revealed it attached.
04Verify
A fault case that has not cleared keeps the release parked until it does.
05Learn
It joins the suite for good, and the service rules are edited to match.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next machine is worked 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, triage workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Shop-floor workflow and service boundary definition.
02Telematics and parts source assessment.
03Fault-code, entitlement and service-policy mapping.
04Machine-record ingestion and mapping.
05Triage logic and record binding.
06Confidence scoring and fault routing.
07Technician review workflow.
08Telematics and work-order integration.
09Fault and downtime cases.
10Guardrails and dispatch controls.
11Machine-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 brand, one shopProductionProduction fleet systemsAdvancedMultiple brands / sites
Introduced at Pilot
Triage across your fleet and brands✓✓✓
Technician review✓✓✓
Fault-accuracy baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by machine—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Telematics integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Complex service policies——✓
Multi-stage shop approvals——✓
High machine count——✓
Mixed-fleet service controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, machine count, review 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 machine list and brand mix→Machine-record ingestion and mappingWeek 1
02Representative past repairs and downtime→Triage baseline, code extraction and record bindingWeek 2
03Your dealer agreements, MOUs and entitlements→Code, entitlement and service rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Telematics, parts and shop assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Machines you would not want dispatched→Warranty cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no repair may be booked without→Confidence scoring, fault routing, guardrails and dispatch controlsWeek 3
07Named technicians to review packages→Technician review 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
Bands sit where the season puts them, which is why week 5 holds evaluation and pilot at once.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Shop workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Telematics and parts integration and the triage baselineW3Triage workflow, confidence logic and technician-review controlsW4Evaluation suite, emissions-boundary checks and failure-mode testingW5Work-order integration, pilot machines and targeted correctionsW6One harvest season run under the shop foreman, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The final checks clear on live machines and monitoring moves to Agent Care.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Agriculture AI agent
Build a maintenance agent that leaves the fault history where you can reach it.
Show us your fleet and who signs off. What you get is a triage workflow, an entitlement register per brand, and an exportable record. The 2026 Deere order is a settlement, not a liability finding, and binds one maker.
