From 18 days to 5–6: AI-assisted review for engineering standards, fully on-prem. The flagship build.
Engineering teams comparing project documents against international standards and internal procedures ran a 18-day manual review cycle. The real blocker wasn't bulk text — it was the parts of a document conventional OCR couldn't read: arrows from callout boxes into a specific cell of a dense parts table, highlighted ink on top of drawings, comments anchored to coordinates rather than text. Standard OCR loses the link between the comment and what it's pointing at.
A fully on-prem, open-source document understanding pipeline combined with a structured four-way decision workflow (Accept / Accept with Comment / Reject / Recommend). The system reads, compares, and surfaces what changed; humans decide and edit in Word; the system then verifies edits actually addressed required changes before submission. No auto-editing — the regulated workflow forbids it.
Days · review cycle (target)
Diff-detection accuracy (target)
Comment extraction (target)
Revision traceability per tag
Engineering review comments live on top of dense tables and drawings — an arrow pointing from a callout box into a specific cell of a parts table is the comment. Generic OCR loses that link. Our pipeline reconstructs it: arrowheads are snapped to TATR's cell grid so a markup attached to a row is correctly linked to that row.
Cuts a 18-day standards-review cycle to a 5–6 day target by giving humans a credible AI-assisted starting point — with policy, observability, and security built in, not bolted on. Every action is traceable per equipment tag across every revision.
Tell us what you're trying to ship. A real engineer replies — no pitch.