Sequence orders across lines and work centres against capacity, material and due dates, re-plan when something breaks and show the trade-off — a planner commits the schedule, and the agent releases nothing.
Take open and firm orders, forecasts, work-order status and what each line actually ran from the ERP and MES.
02
Load routings, cycle times, changeover matrices, calendars, tooling and on-hand and on-order material.
Reason
03
Sequence orders across lines and work centres against finite capacity, the bottleneck and the changeover cost.
04
Check each sequence against material availability, tooling, qualified operators and the shared constraints named.
05
Compare a run against the cycle time and yield the master data claims, and mark where the floor disagrees.
Decide
06
Hold any change inside the frozen window, or one that moves a customer commitment, for the planner to decide.
07
Route a plan that breaks a modelled constraint or rests on stale master data to a planner instead of proposing it.
Out
08
Present the schedule with the trade-off it makes — what is late, what is held, what the sequence costs in changeover.
09
Retain the inputs read, the constraints applied, the alternatives rejected and every edit the planner made.
→Product statement
The agent proposes and re-plans within limits a planner set. Committing the schedule, releasing work, moving material and changing a customer commitment stay with a planner.
Example workflow
One planning run, end to end
AgentHuman
1Planning run openedA shift boundary, an MRP run, a machine down, a material short or an order the customer changed
2Position gatheredOpen and firm orders, work-order status, on-hand and on-order material, calendars and what each line is running
3Constraints loadedRoutings, cycle times, changeover matrix, tooling, qualified operators, shared utilities and the frozen window
4Sequence proposedOrders placed across lines and work centres, with the bottleneck and the changeover cost priced in
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — gathering, loading and sequencing all finish before a planner is asked to read anything. A change that touches a customer commitment ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on whether the change touches a commitment or falls inside the frozen window
Inside the limits set
Goes to the planner as a proposed schedule.
Moves a commitment or a frozen order
Held with the trade-off for the planner to decide.
Planner or scheduling lead
Reads the proposed sequence, what it costs and what it breaks, then edits it and commits the schedule the plant runs.
Commit · Edit sequence · Send back
Committed — handed back▼
6Schedule presented for commitWritten to the ERP or MES only after a planner commits it; nothing is released until they do
7Outcome evaluatedAttainment against the committed plan, churn, constraint violations and where the master data was wrong
Edits
What the planner changes in the sequence is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Committing the schedule the plant runs.
Releasing or dispatching a work order.
Promising or changing a customer due date.
Moving, issuing or reserving physical material.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Sequence orders across lines and work centres against finite capacity.
✓Price changeover cost, due dates and priorities into the proposed order.
✓Re-plan within the limits a planner set when a machine or a material moves.
✓Show the trade-off, the constraint that bound it, and what it rejected.
The agent writes a proposed schedule and its rationale. Committing it and releasing work are not its to write.
Changing routings, cycle times or changeover values.
Overriding a frozen or in-progress order.
Deciding overtime, extra shifts or subcontract.
Changing planning parameters, lot sizes or safety stock.
Example output
One re-plan after a breakdown, annotated
Everything the agent proposes is attached to the orders, constraints and master data it was built from.
Planning output · one re-plan on one disruptionIllustrative example
Disruption
Orders affected
Frozen until
Proposed
Confidence
Commit
Press 3 down, 6 h estimate
4, two due Friday
Wednesday
Two orders to press 5
88%
Not made by the agent
As receivedThe machine, maintenance's estimate and the orders it held — read from the ERP and the MES, not inferred.
Evidence usedPress 5 tooling freeObserved cycle, not standardSame-family changeover
Why this sequencePress 5 holds the tool and is qualified for the family. One order slips to Monday.
ActionCommitEdit sequenceSend back
What the score decidesConfidence says how the master data matched the last runs, not whether the plan is right.
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 open orderERP orders, forecast and work-order status
03Sequence & re-plan
Plan against your own constraints
Use the plant's routings, changeover matrix, calendars, tooling and qualification rules, and what the lines actually ran.
01Approved path
Give the planner a costed option
Each proposal arrives with the constraint that bound it and what it cost, so the planner argues with a sequence instead of rebuilding one.
02Human review
Put the disruptions in front of a person
A machine down, a short material or a changed order reaches the planner as a priced re-plan rather than a spreadsheet rebuilt at shift start.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the orders read, the constraints applied, the alternatives rejected, the confidence and the planner's edit — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
ERP & planningSAP PP/DS · Oracle · Dynamics 365 Infor · MRP and MPS records
MES & shop floorSiemens Opcenter · Rockwell Work-order status · machine states
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the schedule
Each control wraps the one inside it. A schedule clears every layer before a planner sees it, and the commit sits outside all six.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeReturn planning to your existing method if attainment or churn signals degrade.Roll back
L5TraceabilityRecord the orders, constraints, alternatives rejected, confidence and the planner's edit.Record
L4Planner gateCommitting, releasing and re-promising stay with the planner the process names.Gate
L3Churn limitsHow often a re-plan may run, and how much of a committed schedule may move.Damp
L2Constraint gateTooling, qualified operators, material and shared utilities are checked before a sequence stands.Block
L1Master-data currencyCycle times, yields and changeover values are checked against observed runs.Verify
Model coreSchedule proposed — sequence, start and finish times, the binding constraint and confidence
L1 – L2Decide whether a sequence can stand at all
L3Decides how much of a plan may move
L4 – L5Keep the commit with a planner, trail intact
L6Pulls automation back when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole plan — not only the sequence it proposes.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the schedule the planner opens
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDid the committed schedule survive contact with the shift?
E2Step-level evaluationDid it read the right routing, calendar and changeover value?
E3Tool evaluationDid it read the right orders, stock and work-order states?
E4Master-data accuracyDo the cycle times and yields match what the runs actually did?
E5Slice evaluationHow does the plan hold across families, changeovers and shifts?
E6Business outcomeHow much of the plan was attained, and how much of it churned?
Floor — the plan the floor actually runs
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle. None of them commits a schedule, releases work or moves a customer date — the planner's commit, the frozen window and the plant's own change control are the controls that stop them. If one gets through and the floor has already run to it, the orders, constraints and rejected alternatives held in the record are what the re-plan, the customer notification and the material recovery are built from.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval2 modes
PP-01
Inventory the floor cannot find
Stock the system holds is not on the rack.
PP-02
Cycle time the line never hits
The routing standard is not what the line runs at.
Stage gathersOrders, stock, work-order states and the calendars
02 · Constraint model2 modes
PP-03
Constraint nobody modelled
A tool, a qualified operator or a shared utility.
PP-04
A plan with no slack in it
It only works if nothing goes wrong for a week.
Stage modelsCapacity, changeover, tooling, labour and material
03 · Sequencing1 mode
PP-05
Optimal sequence, missed date
Cheapest changeover order, late for the order that mattered.
Stage sequencesOrders across lines against the binding constraint
04 · Output1 mode
PP-06
Promise on capacity already spent
A date given against capacity an unreleased order holds.
Stage presentsThe schedule and the trade-off the planner reads
05 · Change / Version1 mode
PP-07
Re-planning churns the schedule
A parameter change moves it faster than the floor reads it.
Stage tracksModel, parameter, master-data and routing changes
Sev-1 · a customer commitment is put at riskSev-2 · the plan cannot be run as writtenSev-3 · the floor stops trusting the schedule
Two orders on the same line are not the same problem to plan. A family that has run for two years has master data the floor agrees with; a new SKU on its first run does not. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
New SKUs, first runs
6.8%
3.7×
Review
Long-changeover families
5.1%
2.8×
Review
Re-plans after a breakdown
3.4%
1.8×
Watch
Mature family, settled line
1.3%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: planner-edit-rate lift vs. mature-family baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks 2.0×2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A plan the floor could not run becomes a constraint
What the planner edited, and what the shift actually ran, come back as constraints and master-data corrections the next schedule has to respect.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Attainment falls or the planner's edit rate climbs on a family, a line or a shift.
02Diagnose
Traced to a cycle time, a yield, a changeover value, a constraint never modelled or a re-plan trigger.
03Improve
The master data or the constraint model is corrected under your change control, with a named approver.
04Verify
Replayed against the weeks that went wrong, then run in parallel before a planner commits from it.
05Learn
The unmodelled constraint enters the planning model and the wrong standard goes back to industrial engineering.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. A routing or cycle-time correction is a master-data change — it is approved and recorded before planning runs on it, not after.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, master data and access, the constraint model and sequencing, evaluation, then parallel running and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Planning-workflow discovery and boundaries.
02Routing, cycle-time and yield data review.
03ERP, MES and calendar access assessment.
04Order, stock and work-order state ingestion.
05Changeover matrix, built with your setters.
06Constraint model — tooling, labour, utilities.
07Sequencing against finite capacity.
08Frozen-window and commitment guards.
09Re-plan triggers and churn limits.
10Evaluation suite and replayed bad weeks.
11Planner review and schedule-commit workflow.
12Observability, deployment 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 product familyProductionProduction ERP and MES integrationAdvancedMulti-line / multi-site
Introduced at Pilot
Proposed sequence for one line✓✓✓
Finite-capacity and changeover modelling✓✓✓
The trade-off shown with every proposal✓✓✓
Schedule committed by a planner✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Master-data accuracy against observed runs—✓✓
Constraint model — tooling, labour, utilities—✓✓
Re-planning within limits a planner set—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Family and changeover-type slices——✓
Multi-line and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on lines and families in scope, the condition of your planning master data, ERP and MES integrations, constraint complexity 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 routings, cycle times and yields exactly as they stand→Routing, cycle-time and yield data reviewWeek 1
02Access to ERP orders, MES work-order states and shift calendars→ERP, MES and calendar access assessmentWeek 2
03Changeover times from the setters who actually do them→Changeover matrix, built with your settersWeek 3
04The constraints nobody wrote down — tooling, qualified operators, shared utilities→Constraint model — tooling, labour and utilitiesWeek 3
05Your frozen window, priority rules and what a commitment means here→Frozen-window and commitment guards, then churn limitsWeek 4
06The weeks that went badly — breakdowns, shortages and expedites→Evaluation suite, replayed bad weeks and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named planners who commit the schedule today→Planner review and commit workflow, then parallel runningWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the replayed bad weeks and the first schedules your planners commit from.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Planning-workflow discovery, routings, cycle times and yieldsW2ERP, MES and calendar access, then orders and work-order statesW3Changeover matrix, constraint model and finite-capacity sequencingW4Evaluation suite, master-data accuracy and commitment guardsW5Replayed bad weeks, first parallel schedules and churn limitsW6Your planners commit from the agent's plan, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandMaster-data accuracy is measured in week 4 against runs the plant already did — before any schedule is put in front of a planner in week 5.
At the end of W6The agent has planned in parallel with your existing method and been read by the planners who commit from it, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Manufacturing AI agent
Build a planning agent around your own constraints.
Show us one line, its routings and changeover times, and a month that went badly — the breakdowns, the shortages and the expedites. We'll sequence those weeks again on your own master data, name the constraint behind every order, and mark the standards the line no longer runs to.
