Four contract forms close a final account differently: seven days under AS 4000 cl.37.4, 28 under JCT, four weeks under NEC4, no clock at all under FIDIC. The agent counts; the certifier signs.
Builds the completion record, never the certificate
In
01
A defect is raised by direction, instruction or notification — a ranked photograph is an observation, not a Defect.
02
A register item carries its dated evidence, its instrument, the trade that owns it and the subcontract behind it.
Reason
03
A trifling or not-trifling reading is proposed per item — Mears in England and Wales, AS 4000 cl.1 in Australia.
04
A completion test is read from this contract, whether that is AS 4000 cl.1, AIA §9.8.1 or NEC4 cl.11.2(2).
05
A window opens on certification, and each form is counted on its own rule rather than on a merged one.
Decide
06
A final-account line is matched to its instruction, valuation basis or deduction instrument, or flagged unevidenced.
07
A statutory completion instrument is kept in a separate register, never allowed to stand for a contractual one.
Out
08
A draft rationale, its evidence and each person who saw it before the certifier did are retained on the item.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent proposes and counts; the named superintendent, architect, contract administrator or engineer certifies — and a certificate wrongly issued has no correcting entry, only an adjudication.
Example workflow
One register item, raised to signature
AgentHuman
1Defect raisedA superintendent direction, a contract-administrator instruction or an NEC4 notification
2Evidence assembledDated photographs, the instrument that notified it, the owning trade and the subcontract behind it
3Reading proposedTrifling or not, the reason, the contract test cited and confidence
A project-level register-evidence figure can read well while one contract form and one defect type carry most of the unevidenced items. Nestack reports the unevidenced-item rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Amended AS 4000 and AS 4902
7.4%
3.6×
Review
Latent and non-apparent defects
5.6%
2.7×
Review
NEC4 defects-date projects
3.1%
1.5×
Watch
Unamended standard forms
1.3%
0.6×
Normal
Bar: unevidenced-item-rate lift vs. an unamended-form baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A cycle is finished when a test exists
A cycle is done when the late dispute notice has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next account closed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Unevidenced items rise on one contract form.
02Diagnose
The item the builder called trifling and the certifier did not is read back until the cause is one thing.
03Improve
Number the change; the certificates it touched are filed under it.
04Verify
Each touched defect case is run once more, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
It stays as a standing test, and the conclusivity rules move with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Each account closed leaves the suite harder to pass.
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, completion workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Completion workflow discovery and boundary setting.
02Register and cost-source assessment.
03Contract-form, clock and instrument rule mapping.
04Register ingestion and item normalisation.
05Reading logic and instrument binding.
06Confidence scoring and item routing.
07Certifier decision workflow.
08Cost-system and register integration.
09Defect and conclusivity cases.
10Guardrails and certifying controls.
11Register-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 project, one contract formProductionProduction project systemsAdvancedMultiple forms / portfolios
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your contract form✓✓✓
Certifier decision✓✓✓
Register-evidence baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by contract form—✓✓
Conclusivity clocks in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Contract-and-cost integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Amended and bespoke forms——✓
Multi-stage certifier review——✓
High project volume——✓
Multi-form conclusivity 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 contract forms and their amendments→Register ingestion and item mappingWeek 1
02Representative registers from live projects→Reading baseline, instrument binding and clock rulesWeek 2
03Your certifiers, by name and appointment→Contract-form, clock and instrument rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Register and cost-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Accounts you would not want re-opened→Window cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no final certificate may absorb→Confidence scoring, item routing, guardrails and certifying controlsWeek 3
07Named certifiers to decide each reading→Certifier decision 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
What sets a band is the time the phase truly takes, and that is why two of them share week five.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Completion workflow discovery, form mapping and the boundaryW2Register and cost-source integration and the reading baselineW3Reading workflow, clock logic and certifying controlsW4Evaluation suite, window cases and failure-mode testingW5Cost-system integration, pilot projects and targeted correctionsW6One completion cycle run under the named certifier, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar stops where its named work stops. The week 5 overlap is scheduled, not padding.
At the end of W6When the final account validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Construction AI agent
Build a completion agent around your contract, not around a house default.
Bring your contract forms, the register you actually keep and whatever your legal team amended out of clause 37. The certificate is carried personally by whoever signs it, long after the job closes. Accounts payable owns the payment instruments; this evidences what they pay against.