Record the sample, the limit it is measured against and the rule version its schedule runs under — then hold the compliance record for the person your state primacy agency names to sign.
A result returns, and 40 CFR 141.31(a) allows the first ten days of the following month.
02
A limit is exceeded, and § 141.31(b) leaves 48 hours to report the failure to the State.
Reason
03
A notification completes, and § 141.31(d) wants the certification within 10 days of it.
04
A lead action level is exceeded, and § 141.31 caps the copy at 24 hours, sooner if practicable.
05
A report is distributed, and § 141.155(c) wants a copy and a certification within 10 days.
Decide
06
A report is drafted, and the revision published 24 May 2024 applies from 2027, not the 2023 proposal.
07
A schedule is set, and § 141.80(a) is effective 30 December 2024 with compliance by 1 November 2027.
Out
08
A PFAS sample is drawn, and the April 2024 rule stands whole; both May 2026 rules are proposals.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles and reconciles. Part 141 names no federal signer — the state primacy agency names one, and that person certifies and submits.
Example workflow
One sample, result to release
AgentHuman
1Sample result receivedLaboratory reports, inventory entries, monitoring schedules or notification triggers
2Sample context assembledThe system, the method and holding time, the averaging basis and the rule version in force
3Compliance record draftedThe sample, its result, the gaps and completeness
4Controls appliedClock checks, record-sufficiency checks, version checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the compliance lane opens at the completeness gate.
5DecisionForks at the completeness gate
Record sufficient
Goes to the signer the primacy agency names.
Anything thin
Adds a water quality manager read first.
Compliance review
The record is held with its clocks, its gaps and the systems they sit on.
Release · Append result · Send to compliance
Released — to the signer the state names▼
6Sample and inventory records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedRecord completeness, clock coverage, compliance corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each compliance correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Certifying under 40 CFR 141.155(c).
Submitting anything to the primacy agency.
Deciding that a result is a violation.
Issuing public notification to customers.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Hold the sample, the method behind it and the holding.
✓Track each notification clock against its own trigger.
✓Name the rule version each monitoring schedule is running under today.
✓Reconcile the report against the monitoring data already submitted.
Nothing is certified or submitted except by a named person, inside agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a monitoring waiver applies.
Telling the state the system is in compliance.
Setting the material classification of a line.
Changes to sampling plans or inventory records.
Example output
One sample, annotated
Our wildfire, storm and water analytics agent returns a score and its error direction; this record is the compliance record behind one sample.
Compliance record · single sampleIllustrative example
Sample
Recorded as
System
Record on file
Confidence
Held for
Lead tap sample, first draw
Above the action level, unconfirmed
Community water system
Laboratory report, 11 August 2026
Held uncertified
The signer the primacy agency names
As receivedTaken from the laboratory report and the inventory entry — it reaches no further than those records.
What the record holdsMethod and holding timeAveraging basis appliedInventory entry, dated
Why no violation callWhether a result is a violation is a primacy agency call, not a model output.
ActionReleaseAppend resultSend to compliance
What the score decidesA record under the configured threshold gets a compliance read before the signer 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 sampleFrom the system that drew it
03Record
Where the record is used
Our compliance reporting assistant works a register and names no regime; the mining discharge agent works wastewater out, and this page works drinking water in.
01Approved path
The state decides who signs
40 CFR 141.155(c) certifies not only that the report went out but that it is consistent with monitoring data already submitted.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
Part 141 names no federal responsible official; who signs, whether a licence number appears and whether it is electronic are set by the state primacy agency.
04Build an evidence trail
The sample, the method behind it and the person the state named stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Laboratory and samplingLIMS · certified laboratories Chain-of-custody records
Inventory and asset recordsGIS · service line inventory Material evidence records
Monitoring schedulesCompliance calendar · sampling plans Rule version in force
Agent
Drinking water compliance record
Reads the samples Assembles the record Holds for the signer
Notification and reportingPrimacy agency portal · state reporting Public notification records
A system-level version-currency figure can read clean while small community systems carry most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by system type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Small community systems
6.9%
3.6×
Review
Community systems above the size threshold
4.9%
2.6×
Review
Non-transient non-community systems
3.1%
1.6×
Watch
Systems with lead service lines
1.3%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. lead-service-line system baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What the wrong rule version costs
A cycle ends when the wrong rule version is a standing case. That suite is what the next record built is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on small community systems.
02Diagnose
The sampling schedule running under a rule that another schedule had already replaced is read back until one cause remains.
03Improve
Every change leaves numbered, with the systems that caused it filed beneath.
04Verify
A single red system case is enough to keep the release back.
05Learn
The case is permanent, and the version rules are rewritten with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next record is measured 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, evidence assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Drinking-water-clock discovery and boundary work.
02Laboratory, inventory and schedule sources.
03Rule-version-to-schedule and record-coverage mapping.
04Sample record ingestion.
05System, method and result binding.
06Completeness scoring and review routing.
07Signer certification workflow.
08Inventory and laboratory integration.
09Rule-version and sampling cases.
10Guardrails and primacy controls.
11Sample-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 system type, one yearProductionProduction compliance workflowAdvancedMultiple systems / states
Introduced at Pilot
Record assembly to your schedules✓✓✓
Named-signer release✓✓✓
Rule-version baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by system—✓✓
Release workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Laboratory-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-state primacy duties——✓
Cross-rule record packs——✓
Large sampling programmes——✓
Multi-state primacy 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 systems and the schedules they run→System mapping and sample captureWeek 1
02Representative laboratory and inventory records→Record binding, clock logic and the sample baselineWeek 2
03Your primacy agency requirements and forms→Schedule mapping, system binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Laboratory, inventory and schedule-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Records you would not want submitted→Version cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no compliance record may conclude→Completeness scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named signer your state recognises→Signer release 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
These bands measure real work and not drawing space, which is why the fifth week is doubled up.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Compliance workflow discovery, schedule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the rule-version baselineW3Record assembly, clock logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, version cases and failure-mode testingW5Record integration, pilot systems and targeted correctionsW6One compliance year run under the operator the state names, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar runs across only the weeks its own work is named for. The fifth week doubles because the work does.
At the end of W6When the compliance record validates, Agent Care assumes the watch.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Energy AI agent
Build a drinking water compliance agent around the record your state will ask for.
Show us one result and the schedule it belongs to, and we will tell you which rule version that schedule is on. Subpart I is effective 30 December 2024 and compliance falls 1 November 2027; oral argument is expected this autumn. Both PFAS rules of May 2026 remain proposals.
