Product-Compliance & Material-Declarations AI Agent

What this agent does

Assembles the evidence, not the signature

A part joins the bill of materials, and its declarations are pulled from the supplier portal, PLM or a flat file.

A declaration arrives as IPC-1752A, a CMRT or free text, and is normalised to substance, scope and material level.

Reason

A bill of materials is screened, and the pack behind a customer or regulator request is assembled from the result.

A RoHS claim is read per homogeneous material under Directive 2011/65/EU — a part-level average is not the test.

A substance joins the ECHA Candidate List, and the Article 7(2), 33 and SCIP duties are re-run, not just noted.

Decide

A PFAS record from the 2011–2022 lookback is reconstructed now, since 40 CFR 705.20 can open on 60 days' notice.

A supplier answers none detected, and the agent separates tested, out of scope and never asked.

Out

A declaration that is stale, expired or signed without authority is routed to the named compliance officer.

A write happens only inside the approval boundaries agreed at implementation, and never as a signed statement.

→ Product statement

The agent assembles the evidence; a named compliance officer signs, and the manufacturer stays the economic operator of record.

Example workflow

One part, declaration to pack

AgentHuman

1Declaration request raisedPart master, BOM change, customer request or a Candidate List update

2Evidence gatheredSupplier declarations, test reports, dates, scope and signatory, each with its source

3Screening proposedSubstance, material level, declaration scope and confidence

4Controls appliedScope checks, per-material threshold rules, declaration-currency checks and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the officer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold

High confidence

Goes to the compliance officer to approve.

Low confidence

Adds a materials-engineer read first.

Officer approval

The screening is held with its declarations, their scope and the confidence.

Approve · Amend · Send to materials review

Approved — released to the pack▼

6Compliance systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it

7Outcome evaluatedAmendments, gap closure, customer-audit findings and corrections after a pack was issued

Amendments

Officer amendments are counted, including corrections raised after a pack went out.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items

Signing the EU declaration of conformity or affixing CE marking.

Certifying a TSCA submission or signing a Form SD by 31 May.

Deciding that a part conforms on incomplete evidence.

Making a substance representation to a customer or regulator.

Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided

✓Screen the bill of materials against the list version in force.

✓Carry each declaration forward with its date, scope and signatory.

✓Apply the per-material thresholds configured for the product.

✓Flag gaps and stale declarations, and hold the pack for the officer.

Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never as a signed statement.

Notifying ECHA under Article 7(2) or submitting a SCIP dossier.

Accepting a declaration whose signatory's authority is unproven.

Commissioning, interpreting or overriding an analytical test.

Changes to threshold rules, list versions or approval boundaries.

Example output

One part, annotated

Everything the agent screens is attached to the declaration it was drawn from.

Screening output · single partIllustrative example

Part

Declared line

Measurement basis

Declaration on file

Confidence

Signatory

Plated connector

Cadmium below the RoHS limit in the plating layer

Homogeneous material

IPC-1752A on file

88%

Named quality manager

As receivedTaken from the supplier declaration and the test report behind it — nothing on this side is asserted by the agent.

Evidence used Signed IPC-1752A Supplier test report Candidate List version

Why this screeningIt names the layer the limit is measured in — the line the officer weighs.

ActionApproveAmendSend to materials review

What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the screening picks up a materials read before 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 partFrom the declaration on file

03Screening

Screen against the list in force

Draw on the declarations on file and the per-material thresholds configured for the product.

01Approved path

Absent is not the same as absent

Parts with current, in-scope declarations arrive already screened and evidenced.

02Human review

Send review to the thin evidence

Gaps, stale declarations and out-of-scope answers are marked, so the officer's read starts where evidence is thinnest.

04Build an evidence trail

The substance, the declaration it was drawn from and the officer who signed stay on the part.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

PLM and part masterTeamcenter · Windchill
SAP PLM · Arena

Compliance dataAssent · Source Intelligence
iPoint · Sphera

Supplier declarationsIPC-1752A · IEC 62474
CMRT · EMRT · full disclosure

Agent

Product compliance

Reads the declarations
Screens the parts
Holds for the officer

Submission channelsECHA SCIP · REACH-IT
EPA CDX/CISS · SEC EDGAR

Observability & evaluationOpenTelemetry · Langfuse
Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the signed pack

One layer inside the next, six times over. What still gets past is listed in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull screening back to gap-chasing when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back

L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, threshold-rule and list-version changes.Track

L4TraceabilityRecord the declaration, its scope, the screening, the amendments and the approval time.Record

L3Officer approvalHold packs for the named officer; it governs release, not whether the evidence beneath is sound.Gate

L2Policy guardrailsTest screenings against per-material thresholds and scope rules; a failure returns the screening.Restrict

L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence screenings to a materials read before the officer sees them.Require review

Model coreScreening produced — substance, material level, declaration scope and confidence

L1 – L2Test whether a screening may stand

L3Puts the release in an officer's hands

L4 – L5Keep the substance and the declaration behind it

L6Drops to declaration chasing when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the declaration workflow — not only the finished pack.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the pack the customer sees

Depth of coverage ▼

E1Final-output evaluationDid each screened part rest on a declaration that actually covers it?

E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right list version, threshold and product configuration?

E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct part and the correct declaration?

E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence screenings actually attract more officer amendments?

E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific product families?

E6Business outcomeHow many screenings needed an amendment or a correction after the pack went out?

Floor — the outcome the manufacturer answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →

01 · Retrieval1 mode

RH-03

Superseded list version

A part screened against a Candidate List version since replaced.

Stage gathersDeclarations, test reports, list versions and part data

02 · Reasoning2 modes

RH-04

Part-level acceptance

A part-level declaration is read as a material-level result.

RH-06

Named-list PFAS scope

Scoping runs on CAS lists, not the structural definition.

Stage proposesSubstance, material level, scope and confidence

03 · Tool / write2 modes

RH-02

Unauthorised signatory

Declaration signed by someone with no authority to bind.

RH-05

Sub-tier change unseen

Supplier re-sources and the declaration stays current.

Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it

04 · Output1 mode

RH-01

Undocumented inquiry

A no-data answer is recorded without the inquiry behind it.

Stage returnsThe screening the officer signs and the customer sees

05 · Change / Version1 mode

RH-07

Silent threshold drift

A model or rule change widens what the agent accepts.

Stage tracksModel, prompt, threshold rules and list versions

Sev-1 · claim made outside the boundary Sev-2 · unsupported claim reaches the pack Sev-3 · evidence thins, screening to review

See the complete Manufacturing failure-mode catalogue →

Affected slices

Portfolio coverage can hide one bad family

A portfolio compliance figure can read as sound while a few product families carry nearly all of the unsupported claims. Nestack reports the amendment rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example

Slice	Failure rate	Lift	Status
Legacy parts with no declaration	8.3%	3.6×	Review
Plated and coated assemblies	6.6%	2.9×	Review
Distributor-sourced components	4.2%	1.8×	Watch
Machined parts, single source	1.3%	0.6×	Normal

Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. machined-part baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold 2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

Nothing closes until a case exists

A cycle is closed when the unsupported claim is a case the next release must survive. That suite is what the next pack assembled is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

01Detect

Amendment rate rises in a product family.

02Diagnose

The declaration that said none detected and meant not tested is read back to the cause.

03Improve

The change leaves with a version on it and the declarations that found it attached.

04Verify

The release stays shut while any touched declaration case is still red.

05Learn

It is held permanently, and the substance rules shift with it.

Learn → DetectThe return edge. Whatever is detected next meets a longer suite than this one did.

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, screening workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

01Compliance workflow and boundary scoping and boundary definition.

02PLM, ERP and supplier-portal assessment.

03Threshold, list-version and exemption mapping.

04Declaration ingestion and normalisation.

05Screening logic and declaration binding.

06Confidence scoring and gap routing.

07Officer approval workflow.

08PLM and compliance-system integration.

09Substance and declaration cases.

10Guardrails and disclosure controls.

11Part-trail instrumentation.

12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel Final 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 tier PilotOne product family ProductionProduction compliance systems AdvancedMultiple regimes / sites

Introduced at Pilot

Screening to your parts and rules✓✓✓

Officer approval✓✓✓

Declaration-coverage baseline✓✓✓

Introduced at Production

Reporting by product family—✓✓

Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓

Approved write-back—✓✓

Part-master integration—✓✓

Introduced at Advanced

Complex exemption rules——✓

Multi-stage officer approvals——✓

High part volume——✓

Multi-regime substance controls——✓

Build price From $5,000 From $8,000 Custom quote

Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, part 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 part master and bill-of-materials structure → Declaration ingestion and part mappingWeek 1

02Representative supplier declarations → Screening baseline, scope extraction and declaration bindingWeek 2

03Your threshold rules and product-scope decisions → Threshold, list-version and automation-boundary mappingWeek 1

04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports → PLM, ERP and supplier-portal assessment, then integration setupWeek 2

05Claims you would not want tested → Disclosure cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4

06What no compliance claim may rest on → Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3

07Named compliance officers to approve packs → Officer approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6

Nothing else is required Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Each phase spans the weeks it actually consumes, so week 5 is doing two jobs at once.

Phase W1W2W3W4W5W6

Discovery W1

Build W2 – W3

Evaluate W4 – W5

Pilot & Launch W5 – W6

Week focus W1Compliance workflow discovery, threshold mapping and the automation boundary W2Source integration and the screening baseline W3Screening workflow, confidence logic and approval controls W4Evaluation suite, scope checks and failure-mode testing W5Compliance-system integration, pilot families and targeted corrections W6One declaration campaign run under the compliance manager, then Agent Care handover

Reading the bandA bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is work, not padding.

At the end of W6The last checks clear on live packs and Agent Care picks up monitoring.

DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Manufacturing AI agent

Build a product-compliance agent around your declaration file.

Show us your part master, your supplier declarations and who signs. Not a compliance verdict from a model — a gap list, a chased declaration and a pack an officer can sign.

Discuss this agent →

Nestack Agents · Product compliance & material declarationsAGT-MFG-17 · Agent Care available after launch