Main site

Facilities AI agent · Space utilisation

Space Utilisation AI Agent

Attribute each occupancy figure to the method that produced it, mark every zone as measured or unmeasured before a total is formed, and hold the study for the workplace director.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Zone-level only
Coverage first
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Measures the estate, never decides about it

In

  1. 01

    A zone is measured, and the method that measured it is written beside the figure it produced.

  2. 02

    A sensor drops out, and the zone it served is marked unmeasured rather than counted as empty.

Reason

  1. 03

    A wing carries no sensors at all, and it stays outside the denominator until somebody walks it.

  2. 04

    A badge line and a desk sensor disagree, and both readings are kept with the methods behind them.

  3. 05

    A room panel shows a booking, and whether anybody sat in that room is a separate observation.

Decide

  1. 06

    A network association is read as presence on a floor, and never as presence at a given desk.

  2. 07

    A study opens, and its window and its season are fixed before one figure may leave it.

Out

  1. 08

    A request arrives for attendance by name, and the agent declines and answers at the zone.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

The agent measures the zones and states its coverage. The workplace director decides what happens to a floor, a lease or an allocation.

Example workflow

One zone, reading to publication

  1. 1Zone readings receivedBadge events, desk sensors, network associations, room panels or audit sheets
  2. 2Zone context assembledThe zone, the method that measured it, the period it covers and the coverage it may claim
  3. 3Coverage statement draftedThe zone, its readings, its unmeasured areas and completeness
  4. 4Controls appliedCoverage checks, method-consistency checks, period checks and completeness confidence

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is published at any of them — the agent is measuring, and the workplace lane opens at the completeness gate.

5DecisionSplits at the completeness gate
Coverage sufficient

Goes to the workplace director to publish.

Anything thin

Adds a workplace analyst read first.

Workplace review

The study is held with its coverage, its methods and the zones they were taken from.

Publish · Append readings · Send to workplace review

Published — by the workplace director

  1. 6Portfolio and zone records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedCoverage accuracy, method fidelity, reviewer corrections and what the read found

Corrections

Each workplace correction is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Recommending that a floor be released.
    • Deciding which team a zone belongs to.
    • Publishing a figure without its period.
    • Reporting attendance at the person.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Mark every zone as measured or unmeasured before any.
    • ✓Carry the method that produced a reading alongside the reading.
    • ✓Fix the window and the season a study covers before it is opened.
    • ✓Show which zones carried no sensor and were therefore.

    Nothing is published or decided except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.

    • Judging whether a wing is genuinely surplus.
    • Telling the board the estate is under-used.
    • Setting the target a zone is measured against.
  • Changes to leases, allocations or headcount.

Example output

One zone, annotated

Our meeting room agent releases the booking nobody used; this record is what one zone measured across one study window.

Study record · single zone

Illustrative example
Zone
North wing, level three
Recorded as
Measured in part, coverage stated
Method
Desk sensor
Evidence of record
Study window, autumn 2026
Confidence
Held unpublished
Held for
The workplace director, by name

As received

Taken from the desk sensor feed and the audit sheet — it reaches as far as those sources do.

What the record holds

  • Desk sensor feed
  • Manual audit sheet
  • Unmeasured zone list

Why no decision here

Releasing a floor is an estate judgement made by a person, not a model output.

What the score decides

A study under the configured threshold picks up an analyst read before the director sees it.

Action

PublishAppend readingsSend to workplace review

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every zone

From the floor that reports it

03Evidence

Where the evidence is used

A utilisation study is not a workplace strategy: this page measures what the estate carried and states its coverage, and it claims nothing about why a zone was used as it was.

01Approved path

A desk is not a person

Coverage is settled before utilisation is reported, so a zone with no sensor on it goes out marked unmeasured and never as empty.

02Human review

What was checked, and not found

No measurement standard was purchased or read, no vendor sensor-accuracy claim was accepted, no benchmark from an industry survey was carried onto this page, and what the agent may hold about an individual is governed by your own configured policy on personal data.

04

Build an evidence trail

The zone, the count observed in it and the manager who read it stay together.

Integrations

Typical integrations

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

  • Access and badge sources

    • Badge readers
    • turnstiles
    • Entry and exit events

  • Sensors and building systems

    • Desk sensors
    • counters
    • Zone occupancy readings

  • Network and room panels

    • Wi-Fi controller
    • panels
    • Association and room logs

Agent

Space utilisation measurement

  • Reads the zones
  • States the coverage
  • Holds for the director

  • Portfolio and audit systems

    • IWMS
    • audit sheets
    • Floor plans and zone maps

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

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

Agent controls

Six grates between the model and the director

Six grates laid over each other, the last most closely woven. What drops through is in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to measurement and coverage when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt and coverage rules; a redrawn zone map or a moved sensor changes what an old figure meant.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord each zone, the method behind it, the period it covers and every read of the study.Record
L3Director releaseHold the study for the workplace director; that hold governs publication, not what the estate ought to do next.Gate
L2Method guardrailsTest each zone against the method configured for it; badge, sensor, network and panel readings are never pooled into one number.Restrict
L1Coverage thresholdsRoute a study whose measured share falls short to an analyst read before the director sees it.Require review
Model coreMeasurement assembled — the zone, the method, the period and its coverage
L1 – L2
Test whether a study may stand
L3
Puts the publication in a person's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the zone and the count behind it
L6
Narrows to aggregate reporting when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the utilisation figure that comes out.

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

Surface — the study a board reads

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the figure carry the coverage it was built on?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right zone, the right method and the live floor plan?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct zone record and the correct study?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo thinly covered zones actually attract more workplace corrections?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific building types?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many studies needed a correction before the director published?

Floor — the estate the board answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, each held at the stage where it becomes visible.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • KN-03

      Stale floor plan read

      The zone map read is not the one now in use.

    Stage gathers

    The zones, the methods, the dates and the maps

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • KN-04

      Utilisation asserted, not covered

      A total is formed over a zone nobody measured.

    • KN-06

      Methods mixed across zones

      Badge and sensor readings are pooled as one.

    Stage proposes

    The zones, their methods and coverage

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • KN-02

      Thin study passed forward

      A study moves on without the analyst read.

    • KN-05

      Bound to the wrong zone

      A reading is filed against the wrong floor.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • KN-01

      Published, coverage unstated

      A figure lands on the record without the areas it never covered.

    Stage returns

    The study a director publishes and a board reads

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • KN-07

      Silent coverage regression

      A sensor estate changes, and the denominator does not.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, coverage rules and study fields

  • Sev-1 · an unmeasured wing counted empty
  • Sev-2 · methods pooled into one figure
  • Sev-3 · source degrades, study held back
See the complete Facilities failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

Legacy wings absorb the corrections

A zone-level coverage figure can read clean while sensor-sparse legacy wings carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by zone type, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Sensor-sparse legacy wings8.4%3.6×Review
Mixed-method floors6.0%2.6×Review
Meeting-room clusters3.7%1.6×Watch
Fully instrumented floors1.9%0.8×Normal

Bar: correction-rate lift vs. fully instrumented floor baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

What an unmeasured wing costs

The loop shuts when the sensor blind spot is a regression case. That suite is what the next study published is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Correction rate rises on sensor-sparse legacy wings.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The wing with no sensors that read as empty in every board pack is worked back until one cause remains.

  3. 03

    Improve

    Any change goes out numbered, with the zones that caused it attached.

  4. 04

    Verify

    One zone case still failing is enough to hold the release back.

  5. 05

    Learn

    One case joins the suite, one line joins the measurement record.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next study 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, measurement assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

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

  1. 01Coverage-baseline and automation-boundary work.Week 1
  2. 02Badge, sensor and floor-plan sources.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Zone-to-method and coverage-completeness mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Zone and sensor reading ingestion.Week 2
  5. 05Zone, method and period binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Coverage scoring and review routing.Week 3
  7. 07Director publication workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Workplace-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Coverage and aggregation cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and publication controls.Week 4
  11. 11Zone-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

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 tierPilotOne building, one studyProductionProduction measurement workflowAdvancedMultiple buildings / regions
Introduced at Pilot
Measurement to your zone map✓✓✓
Workplace director release✓✓✓
Sensor-coverage baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by zone—✓✓
Publication workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Badge-and-sensor integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-building estates——✓
Cross-period study packs——✓
Large sensor estates——✓
Multi-floor aggregation controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, estate size, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build 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.

  1. 01Your buildings and the zone map behind each one

    Zone mapping and reading capture

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative badge, sensor and audit readings

    Reading binding, method logic and the coverage baseline

    Week 2

  3. 03Your configured policy on personal data

    Method mapping, period binding and the automation boundary

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Badge, sensor and floor-plan source assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Studies you would not want questioned

    Coverage cases and failure-mode testing

    Week 4

  6. 06What no occupancy figure may prove

    Coverage scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controls

    Week 3

  7. 07A named workplace director to publish

    Publication workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Each bar is sized to the weeks that phase really costs, and the fifth of them therefore doubles up.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Workplace discovery, zone mapping and the automation boundary

W2Source integration and the sensor-coverage baseline

W3Measurement assembly, method logic and release controls

W4Evaluation suite, coverage cases and failure-mode testing

W5Floor-plan integration, pilot zones and targeted corrections

W6One occupancy study run under the workplace director, then Agent Care handover

Reading the band
No band is padded out; each spans the weeks its own work is named for, and week five holds a pair.
At the end of W6
Once the occupancy record validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Facilities AI agent

Build a utilisation agent around the wing your board pack has never actually measured.

Bring us one wing and the readings behind it. Send a floor plan and a single measured week as the next step, and we will return the study with its coverage stated and every unmeasured area named. Whether a floor is released stays with your workplace director.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your zone map
Zone-level only
Coverage first
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Space utilisation

AGT-AF-07 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a utilisation agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your zones

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.