Read ATE and AOI results with the measurement uncertainty they carry, group defects and surface drift against the limits your engineers set, and assemble the pack for the named quality engineer, who decides.
Near-limit measurements are the slice an aggregate buries — a small share of readings, most of the amendments. Nestack reports the 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
Near-limit measurements
4.9%
3.9×
Review
Marginal AOI calls
3.4%
2.7×
Review
Recalibrated stations
2.5%
2.0×
Watch
Mature high-volume lines
0.9%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. the mature-line baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A cycle ends in a case, not a conclusion
Nothing closes on a review meeting. It closes on a case the next release has to pass, and that suite is what the next lot dispositioned is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Amendment rate rises in a reading slice.
02Diagnose
If the reading and the log disagree, the trail is followed until one limit set, station or prompt accounts for it.
03Improve
Every change ships against a version with the lots attached.
04Verify
The release is blocked while an affected case fails.
05Learn
The case becomes permanent, and the disposition rules are re-tested.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The suite the next lot meets is 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, reporting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Test-floor workflow discovery and boundary definition.
02ATE, AOI and MES source assessment.
03Limit set, decision rule and acceptance-criteria mapping.
04Result ingestion and unit normalisation.
05Reading logic and uncertainty binding.
06Confidence scoring and drift routing.
07Engineer disposition workflow.
08MES and test-system integration.
09Uncertainty and limit cases.
10Guardrails and disposition controls.
11Lot-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 line, one productProductionProduction test systemsAdvancedMultiple plants / lines
Introduced at Pilot
Reading to your limits and criteria✓✓✓
Engineer disposition✓✓✓
Measurement-consistency baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by line and product—✓✓
Disposition workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
MES and test-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-standard limit rules——✓
Multi-stage quality approvals——✓
High lot volume——✓
Multi-plant disposition 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 test programmes and their limit sets→Result ingestion and reading mappingWeek 1
03Your decision rule and acceptance criteria→Limit set, decision rule and acceptance-criteria mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→ATE, AOI and MES assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Dispositions you would not want repeated→Limit cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What a measurement is never allowed to decide→Confidence scoring, drift routing, guardrails and disposition controlsWeek 3
07Named quality engineers to disposition lots→Engineer disposition 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 bands sit on the weeks the work occupies, so the fifth carries evaluation and launch together.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Test workflow discovery, limit mapping and the automation boundaryW2Test-source integration and the reading baselineW3Reporting workflow, confidence logic and disposition controlsW4Evaluation suite, uncertainty checks and failure-mode testingW5MES integration, pilot lots and targeted correctionsW6One production run dispositioned under the quality team, then handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The run closes validation and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Electronics AI agent
Build a test agent around your limits and your quality engineers.
Show us a week of test logs and the limits behind them. You bring the decision rule, the acceptance criteria and the engineer who dispositions a lot. We map the reporting workflow around them.
