Assemble the chronology of principal events behind a defect determination, track the Part 573 and Part 577 clocks, and leave the determination itself with the engineer who has to make it.
A programme-wide filing rate can read as timely while a few campaign cohorts carry most of the late chronologies. Nestack reports the engineer-amendment rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Agency-influenced campaigns
9.5%
3.7×
Review
Supplier-originated defects
7.6%
3.0×
Review
Foreign field actions
4.8%
1.9×
Watch
Manufacturer-opened campaigns
2.1%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. manufacturer-opened baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The loop closes on a test, not a memo
A cycle is done when the missed signal has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next determination made is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
The § 573.15 lookup goes stale, or amendments rise in a slice.
02Diagnose
The signal that was visible long before anyone named it is read back until one cause holds.
03Improve
Stamp the change with a version; the campaigns behind it are filed against it.
04Verify
Every touched case is put through again, and a single red stops the release dead.
05Learn
It stays as a standing test, and the reporting rules are rewritten alongside it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next signal is caught 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, assembly workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Recall workflow discovery and boundary definition.
02Warranty, field and supplier source review.
03Part 573, Part 577 and quarterly reporting rules.
04Field-record ingestion and date mapping.
05Chronology logic and source binding.
06Confidence scoring and gap routing.
07Engineer sign-off workflow.
08Filing and campaign-system integration.
09Signal and deadline cases.
10Guardrails and reporting controls.
11Campaign-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 campaign, one marketProductionProduction filing systemsAdvancedMultiple markets / brands
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your sources and rules✓✓✓
Engineer sign-off✓✓✓
Chronology-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by campaign—✓✓
Sign-off workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Field-data integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-market reporting rules——✓
Multi-stage safety-office review——✓
High campaign volume——✓
Multi-market campaign controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction 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 field, warranty and supplier sources→Field-record ingestion and date-of-receipt mappingWeek 1
02Representative closed campaigns→Chronology baseline, source binding and clock modellingWeek 2
03Your reporting rules and notice templates→Part 573, Part 577 and quarterly reporting rulesWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Warranty, field and supplier assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Determinations you would not want dated→Timeliness cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no chronology may leave out→Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and sign-off controlsWeek 3
07Named safety-office engineers to review packages→Engineer sign-off 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
The plan is drawn on elapsed weeks, not on slide space, so week 5 legitimately doubles.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Recall workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the chronology baselineW3Assembly workflow, confidence logic and sign-off controlsW4Evaluation suite, clock checks and failure-mode testingW5Filing integration, pilot campaigns and targeted correctionsW6One campaign run under the safety-office engineer, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar sits on the weeks its work is named in and no others. The week 5 doubling is real work, not padding.
At the end of W6The closing checks pass on live campaigns, and Agent Care takes monitoring on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Automotive AI agent
Build a safety-recall agent around your determination clock.
Show us your field sources, your reporting rules and who determines. The determination, its date and the signature on the Part 573 report stay with your safety-office engineer.
