Maintain as-built genealogy from the records your plants already write, assemble the smallest population the evidence will defend, and hold it for the named person who decides scope.
A unit is built, and the lots, machines, tooling and test results the line captures are bound to its serial.
02
A lot is consumed, and its split across work orders is carried down to the unit, not left at the order.
Reason
03
A unit is reworked off the line, and the bench event is carried forward rather than left as a silent gap.
04
A build is covered only to the level risk-graded in the IATF 16949:2016 8.5.2.1 plan, and that level is stated.
05
A defect is confirmed, and the population is assembled with the evidence that puts the adjacent units outside it.
Decide
06
A record is missing, and the population widens to the boundary the evidence holds, with the gap named.
07
A lot is suspect, and forward tracing lists where it went, as far down the tiers as the distribution records reach.
Out
08
A population is assembled, and it goes with its exclusion evidence to the named recall decision-maker.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the population; 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2), as in force in 2026, makes the basis for it a filed statement a named officer signs.
Example workflow
One confirmed defect, end to end
AgentHuman
1Defect confirmedField failure, warranty signal, test escape or supplier notice
2Genealogy pulledLots, sub-assembly serials, machines, tooling, process data and rework events
3Population assembledSerials in scope, the units ruled out, open gaps and confidence
4Controls appliedExclusion-evidence checks, gap coverage, forward-trace checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no unit is included or excluded at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the decision-maker's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the recall decision-maker to scope.
Low confidence
Adds a legal read first.
Scope decision
The population is held with its exclusion evidence, its open gaps and the confidence.
Sign off · Widen · Send to legal review
Scoped — decision recorded▼
6Quality systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedWidenings, units found late, and populations amended after the report was filed
Widenings
Every population the decision-maker widens is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Determining that a defect is safety-related.
Deciding the affected population and the remedy.
Judging whether a condition is reportable.
Filing a defect report with a regulator.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Maintain as-built genealogy from the records the line writes for the named owner.
✓Assemble the smallest population the records will defend into the review queue.
✓Show what puts each adjacent unit outside that boundary.
✓Mark the gaps in the genealogy, and hold the population.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never before the scope decision.
Narrowing a population the genealogy cannot support.
Telling a customer that suspect units shipped.
Setting the recall strategy or its depth.
Changes to genealogy, exclusion or retention rules.
Example output
One confirmed defect, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the record it was drawn from.
Scoping output · single defectIllustrative example
Defect
Population line
Units in scope
Basis of record
Confidence
Units ruled out
Sensor sub-assembly
Traced to one supplier lot on one line
1,320 units
As-built genealogy
86%
Adjacent lots, evidenced
As receivedTaken from the build records the line already writes — nothing on this side is inferred by the agent.
Evidence usedLot-to-unit recordsMachine and test dataRework bench entries
Why these unitsIt is the boundary the build records will defend and a person still decides.
ActionSign offWidenSend to legal review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the population picks up a legal read first.
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 unitFrom the build record
03Scoping
Scope from the record
Draw on the lot, machine, test and rework records the plants already write.
01Approved path
Scope is an exclusion problem
NHTSA's November 2024 Ford consent order required a VIN-based traceability system.
02Human review
Send review to the thin records
Open gaps and low-confidence populations are marked, so the read starts where the genealogy is thin.
04Build an evidence trail
The unit, the record it was built from and the engineer who scoped it stay on the campaign.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
MES and shop floorSiemens Opcenter · Plex Critical Manufacturing · AVEVA
ERP and serialisationSAP · Oracle · Infor Lot, batch and serial masters
Quality and PLMTeamcenter · Windchill ETQ · Sparta TrackWise
Agent
Genealogy & recall scoping
Reads the records Assembles the population Holds for the decision
Distribution and fieldWMS · consignee records Warranty and field-failure data
A plant-level completeness score can read strong while a few build periods carry most of the widening. Nestack reports the widening rate by slice, not only in total across the plant.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Lots split across work orders
5.9%
3.5×
Review
Units reworked off the line
3.8%
2.2×
Review
Build periods past retention
2.6%
1.5×
Watch
Single-line serialised builds
1.4%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: scope-widening-rate lift vs. single-line serialised baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Nothing closes until the gap is a test
A cycle is done when the hole in the genealogy is a case the next release must close. That suite is what the next population scoped is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Widening rate rises in a build period.
02Diagnose
The recall that took every unit built that year is traced back until one cause is left.
03Improve
Version the fix, and the units that exposed it stay attached to that version.
04Verify
The release is held back until each touched scoping case passes again.
05Learn
The case is retained, and the genealogy rules move with it in one change.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next population is scoped 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, population assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Scoping workflow and evidence boundary definition.
02Build-record and genealogy assessment.
03Lot, serial, rework and process-record rule mapping.
04Genealogy ingest and unit-link mapping.
05Population assembly and evidence binding.
06Confidence scoring and gap routing.
07Scope-decision workflow.
08MES and ERP-system integration.
09Population and evidence cases.
10Guardrails and scoping controls.
11Unit-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 plant, one product lineProductionProduction shop-floor systemsAdvancedMultiple plants / systems
Introduced at Pilot
Genealogy from your build records✓✓✓
Scope decision✓✓✓
Genealogy-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by build period—✓✓
Scope-decision workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Shop-floor record integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-sector reporting rules——✓
Multi-stage quality approvals——✓
High build volume——✓
Multi-plant genealogy 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 build records and serialisation scheme→Genealogy ingestion and unit-link mappingWeek 1
02Representative builds, rework included→Scoping baseline, evidence indexing and unit bindingWeek 2
03Your exclusion rules and retention limits→Lot, serial and rework-rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→MES, ERP and quality assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Populations you would not want defended→Exclusion cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no narrowing may rest on→Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and scope controlsWeek 3
07A named decision-maker to scope campaigns→Scope-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
Each band covers the weeks the build really takes, so evaluation and pilot share the fifth.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Scoping workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the genealogy baselineW3Population assembly, confidence logic and scope controlsW4Evaluation suite, exclusion and gap checks and failure-mode testingW5Quality-system integration, pilot defects and targeted correctionsW6One build period reconstructed under the quality manager, then handover
Reading the bandA bar sits only on the weeks its own work is named in. Week 5 really does carry two phases.
At the end of W6The final checks clear on live campaigns and monitoring moves to Agent Care.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Manufacturing AI agent
Build a recall-scoping agent before a regulator scopes it for you.
Show us your build records and who decides scope. The evidence that the units you left out are fine has to survive a regulator reading it, a customer spot-checking it and a field failure two years on.
