A discrepancy stays open until a design professional accepts it in writing. The agent keeps that ledger, tests coverage against the statement of special inspections, and hands the sealing engineer a jurisdiction-built bundle.
Work is scheduled, and the statement of special inspections is read as the schedule of record for the permit.
02
Work is placed, and coverage is tested against what was placed rather than against what was reported.
Reason
03
A report arrives, and it is checked for the was-or-was-not conformance conclusion the California text requires.
04
A discrepancy is raised, and it enters the ledger with its date, its phase of work and its correction status.
05
An item stays uncorrected, and the escalation the adopting code names is tested against the phase clock.
Decide
06
A resolution is offered, and the agent checks it is a writing signed by someone entitled to give it.
07
A site-capture observation is not a ledger item; only a credentialed inspector finding under the statement enters.
Out
08
A bundle is assembled to the contents list the adopting jurisdiction publishes, and what is missing is named.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles and tests the record; a named licensed professional seals and files whatever the adopting jurisdiction requires.
Example workflow
One discrepancy, raised to resolved
AgentHuman
1Inspection report receivedApproved-agency report, test result, field log or contractor correspondence
2Item matchedStatement line, phase of work, location and the credential of whoever signed
3Ledger entry draftedRaised date, phase, correction status, escalation state and confidence
4Controls appliedCoverage checks, escalation-clock tests, credential-currency checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided and nothing is sealed at any of them — a sealed report cannot be recalled once occupancy follows it, so the engineer lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the design professional to resolve.
Low confidence
Adds a special-inspector read first.
Engineer resolution
The item is held with its reports, its phase clock and the confidence.
Accept · Correct · Refer to the inspector
Accepted — recorded on the ledger▼
6Ledger and report set updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedCoverage gaps, escalation misses, reopened items and bundles the official returned
Corrections
Corrections made at resolution are counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Performing or witnessing a special inspection or test.
Signing, sealing or filing a report or a statement.
Determining that work conforms to approved documents.
Supplying or inferring a resolution nobody signed.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Reconcile reports against the statement of special inspections.
✓Carry each ledger item with its phase, its dates and its evidence.
✓Test the closing bundle against the jurisdiction contents list.
✓Flag what is missing, and hold the item for the named professional.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of a seal.
Preparing or amending the statement of special inspections.
Approving an agency, an inspector or a laboratory.
Closing an item on a contractor confirmation alone.
Changes to jurisdiction rules, phase maps or escalation clocks.
Example output
One item in the ledger, annotated
What the agent assembles stays attached to the report it came from.
Ledger output · single itemIllustrative example
Inspection type
Ledger item
Phase of work
Escalation state
Confidence
Resolution evidence
High-strength bolting
Slip-critical connection at grid E recorded as snug-tight
Phase 3 · frame
Contractor, official and RDPRC
88%
No signed acceptance on file
As receivedTaken from the agency report and the statement of special inspections — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Evidence assembledAgency inspection reportStatement of inspectionsContractor correspondence
Why this stays openThe District of Columbia deficiency list wants an acceptance in writing, and none is on the file.
ActionAcceptCorrectRefer to the inspector
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the item picks up a special-inspector read before the engineer sees it.
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 ledger itemFrom the agency reports
03Assembly
Reconcile to the statement
Read the reports against the statement of special inspections and the work actually placed.
01Approved path
The seal is a person
Routine items arrive already matched, dated and placed on a phase.
02Human review
Send review to the open items
Coverage gaps, missed escalations and unevidenced resolutions are marked, so the engineer reads where risk sits.
04Build an evidence trail
The item, the discrepancy raised on it and the professional who sealed stay on the report.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A project-level coverage figure can read as complete while a single inspection type carries most of the open discrepancies. Nestack reports the open-item rate by inspection type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Post-installed anchors
6.9%
3.6×
Review
Structural welding
4.9%
2.6×
Review
Concrete placement
3.3%
1.7×
Watch
Soils and foundations
2.2%
1.2×
Normal
Bar: open-item-rate lift vs. soils-and-foundations 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 regression case
The loop shuts when the unresolved discrepancy is a regression case. That suite is what the next report closed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Open-item rate rises in one inspection type.
02Diagnose
The pour that went ahead while the discrepancy was still open is read back through the reports until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
Any change ships with a number, and the items attach to it.
04Verify
One discrepancy case still failing is enough to hold the release.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the inspection record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next detection runs 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 workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Inspection workflow discovery and boundary mapping.
02Agency and laboratory source assessment.
03Statement, phase-map and jurisdiction-rule mapping.
04Report ingestion and item normalisation.
05Coverage logic and statement binding.
06Confidence scoring and escalation routing.
07Engineer resolution workflow.
08Project and permitting integration.
09Coverage and discrepancy cases.
10Guardrails and sealing controls.
11Discrepancy-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 jurisdictionProductionProduction project systemsAdvancedMultiple projects / jurisdictions
Introduced at Pilot
Ledger against your statement✓✓✓
Engineer resolution✓✓✓
Coverage-against-statement baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by inspection type—✓✓
Resolution workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Schedule-and-model integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Complex phase maps——✓
Multi-stage design-team approvals——✓
High report volume——✓
Multi-jurisdiction report 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 statement of special inspections and phase map→Statement ingestion and ledger-item mappingWeek 1
02Representative agency and laboratory reports→Coverage baseline, item extraction and statement bindingWeek 2
03Your jurisdiction and its closing contents list→Jurisdiction-rule mapping and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Agency, laboratory and project-system assessment, then setupWeek 2
05Reports you would not want re-read→Escalation cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no final report may carry open→Confidence scoring, escalation routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named design professionals to resolve items→Engineer resolution 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
Elapsed weeks fix each of the widths drawn on this chart, which is why the fifth carries a pair.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Inspection workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the coverage baselineW3Ledger workflow, escalation logic and resolution controlsW4Evaluation suite, escalation checks and failure-mode testingW5Project-system integration, pilot items and targeted correctionsW6One inspection programme run under the design professional, 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 W6Once the final report validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Construction AI agent
Build a special-inspection record agent around the jurisdiction you build in.
Show us your statement of special inspections, your agency reports and the jurisdiction that reads the closing bundle. We looked for a published measure of how often these records fail at closeout and found none, so we will not quote you one.
