Facilities AI agent · Maintenance evidence
Vendor & Maintenance Coordination AI Agent
Tether every contractor certificate to the asset it was worked on and to the edition your own authority adopted, then hold the periodic inspection record 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(ii) makes the employer certify.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Two signers
- Edition-bound
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Holds the register; the contractor holds the pen
In
- 01
An interval falls due, and its date comes from the edition your authority adopted, not from NFPA.
- 02
A contractor attends, signs the service certificate and leaves; that signature is theirs, never yours.
Reason
- 03
An edition moves: Delaware runs NFPA 25 (2023) and NFPA 72 (2025) from 1 January 2026.
- 04
A neighbour sits elsewhere: Maryland adopted the 2023 edition of NFPA 25 during 2025.
- 05
An extinguisher wants a monthly look under § 1910.157(e)(2) and a dated annual check under (e)(3).
Decide
- 06
A yellow tag is hung in Texas, and 28 TAC § 34.721 sets five business days to notify owner and AHJ.
- 07
An energy-control procedure comes round yearly, and § 1910.147(c)(6)(ii) makes the employer certify.
Out
- 08
An inspector is named, and § 1910.147(c)(6)(i)(A) bars anyone using the procedure inspected.
- 09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
The agent works the register and the intervals. Your contractor signs the service certificate; the employer certifies the § 1910.147(c)(6) inspection.
Example workflow
One asset, certificate to file
- 1Contractor evidence receivedInspection reports, service tags, deficiency notes or vendor exports
- 2Asset context assembledThe asset, the building around it, the edition its authority adopted and the day service was performed
- 3Interval evidence draftedThe asset, the record behind it, what has lapsed and completeness
- 4Controls appliedInterval checks, edition checks, deficiency checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is released at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the estate lane opens at the completeness gate.
Goes to the estate engineer to release.
Adds a maintenance planner read first.
Maintenance review
The file is held with its asset, its interval and the edition it was worked against.
Release · Append evidence · Send to maintenance review
Released — by the estate engineer
- 6Asset and vendor records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedInterval currency, evidence coverage, reviewer corrections and what the read found
Corrections
Each maintenance correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Certifying the § 1910.147(c)(6) periodic inspection.
- Signing a service certificate for a contractor.
- Declaring an asset fit to return to service.
- Choosing which edition an authority has adopted.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Hold the serviceable-asset register with the interval.
- ✓Bind every contractor record to the asset and the edition worked.
- ✓Flag the asset whose evidence has lapsed or cannot be produced.
- ✓Assemble the four fields § 1910.147(c)(6)(ii) makes.
Nothing is released or certified except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.
- Judging whether an interval was in fact met.
- Telling a fire official the estate is current.
- Naming the coordinator for an impairment.
- Changes to the register, tags or vendor records.
Example output
One asset, annotated
Tenant repair triage belongs to our real-estate maintenance agent and its statutory repair clock; this record is one fixed asset in a building that never finishes.
Service record · single asset
Illustrative example- Asset
- Sprinkler riser, annual interval
- Recorded as
- Serviced and tagged, one deficiency open
- Edition
- NFPA 25 (2023)
- Evidence of record
- Contractor report, 3 August 2026
- Confidence
- Held unreleased
- Held for
- The estate engineer, by name
As received
Read off the contractor report and the tag on the riser, and it carries no further than those two.
What the record holds
- Contractor report
- Service tag, dated
- Deficiency note
Why no release here
Returning a riser to service is an engineer judgement, never a model output.
What the score decides
Under the configured threshold the file collects a planner read ahead of the engineer.
Action
ReleaseAppend evidenceSend to maintenance reviewValue
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 asset
From the building that owes it
Where the evidence is used
A service history is not a fire strategy: this page shows what was done to an asset and when, and it claims nothing about whether the system as designed suits the building.
The signature is the contractors
NFPA 25 and NFPA 72 carry no force of their own and bind only where an authority having jurisdiction adopts them, and the pen belongs to the licensed contractor rather than to you.
What was checked, and not found
Current NFPA 25 and NFPA 72 clause text sits behind a paywall and was not read, so the Record of Completion signature blocks quoted here come from the 2009-edition figure republished by Illinois DPH; ASHRAE 188 sits behind the same paywall and stayed unopened; the water-management lane carries no signature, no certification and no fixed deadline, taking its force from the Condition of Participation rather than from the CMS memo; and the California violent incident log wants a name, a job title and a date, but no signature anywhere.
Build an evidence trail
The asset, the service performed on it and the technician who signed stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Contractor and vendor sources
- Inspection reports
- tags
- Service certificates
Asset and building records
- CAFM
- asset register
- Serviceable-asset baseline
Code and jurisdiction
- Adopted editions
- AHJ list
- Interval rules per site
Agent
Vendor and maintenance coordination
- Reads the register
- Binds the evidence
- Holds for the engineer
Work-order and case systems
- CMMS
- ticketing
- Deficiency and impairment records
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six gates between the model and the engineer
Six strainers in series, each finer than the last. Whatever gets through is charted in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a file may stand
- L3
- Puts the release in a person's hands
- L4 – L5
- Keep the asset and the service behind it
- L6
- Drops back to record assembly when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the service file that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the file an official reads
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the file record what the service actually covered?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right asset, the right edition and the live register?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct asset record and the correct interval?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence files actually attract more maintenance corrections?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific asset classes?
- E6Business outcomeHow many files needed a correction before the engineer released?
Floor — the estate the employer answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each placed at the stage where it first shows.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- KJ-03
Stale register read
The asset list read is not the one now in service.
Stage gathers
The assets, the tags, the dates and the editions
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- KJ-04
Interval called current
An interval is called met without its record.
- KJ-06
Wrong edition applied
Work is judged against an edition nobody adopted here.
Stage proposes
The assets, their intervals and completeness
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- KJ-02
Thin file passed forward
A file moves on without the planner read.
- KJ-05
Bound to the wrong asset
A certificate is filed against another riser.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- KJ-01
Released, evidence unrecorded
The record shows a release but not what supported it.
Stage returns
The file an engineer releases and an official reads
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- KJ-07
Silent interval regression
A configuration change moves the interval, not the asset.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, interval rules and asset fields
- Sev-1 · an asset released on no evidence
- Sev-2 · wrong record reaches the register
- Sev-3 · source degrades, file held unreleased
Affected slices
Risers absorb the corrections
An asset-level interval-currency figure can read clean while sprinkler and standpipe assets carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by asset class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sprinkler and standpipe assets | 9.3% | 3.6× | Review | |
| Fire alarm and detection assets | 6.6% | 2.6× | Review | |
| Portable extinguisher assets | 4.1% | 1.6× | Watch | |
| Lockout isolation points | 2.0% | 0.8× | Normal |
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. lockout isolation baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a lapsed tag costs
A loop ends when the missing inspection tag has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next asset cleared is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Correction rate rises on sprinkler and standpipe assets.
- 02
Diagnose
The inspection tag that expired on a riser nobody had walked in two years is read back until one cause remains.
- 03
Improve
Number the change; the assets that drove it are filed underneath it.
- 04
Verify
Each touched asset case is run once more, and one red holds it back.
- 05
Learn
It stays on as a standing test, and the edition rules move alongside it.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next asset 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, record assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Serviceable-asset discovery and boundary-setting work.Week 1
- 02Contractor, tag and register sources.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Asset-to-interval and edition-coverage rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Service-record ingestion.Week 2
- 05Asset, edition and record binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Completeness scoring and review routing.Week 3
- 07Engineer release workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Asset-register system integration.Week 5
- 09Interval and edition cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and acceptance controls.Week 4
- 11Asset-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
- 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 tier | PilotOne building, one year | ProductionProduction maintenance workflow | AdvancedMultiple sites / jurisdictions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Record assembly to your intervals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Estate engineer release | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Serviceable-asset baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by asset class | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Release workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Contractor-record integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-site registers | — | — | ✓ |
| Cross-year evidence packs | — | — | ✓ |
| Large asset estates | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-jurisdiction edition controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, asset volume, 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.
You bring
We build with it
01Your buildings and the assets each one carries
→Asset-register mapping and interval capture
Week 102Representative contractor reports, tags and deficiency notes
→Record binding, interval logic and the register baseline
Week 203The editions your authorities have adopted
→Interval mapping, edition binding and the automation boundary
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Contractor, register and work-order source assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Assets you would not want inspected
→Interval cases and failure-mode testing
Week 406What no service record may establish
→Completeness scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controls
Week 307An estate engineer who releases the file
→Release 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
Read the widths as weeks actually worked and not as layout, which forces two phases into the fifth.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Maintenance workflow discovery, interval mapping and the automation boundary
W2Source integration and the serviceable-asset baseline
W3Record assembly, edition logic and release controls
W4Evaluation suite, interval cases and failure-mode testing
W5Register integration, pilot assets and targeted corrections
W6One inspection year run under the estate engineer, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- Each bar covers only the weeks its own work is named for. Week five holds a pair because the work does.
- At the end of W6
- Validation closes on live assets, and Agent Care picks up the watch.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Facilities AI agent
Build a maintenance evidence agent around the asset your contractor signed for.
Nothing in NFPA 25 or NFPA 72 binds you until the authority having jurisdiction over that building adopts an edition of it. Show us your asset register and one contractor certificate held against it. The § 1910.147(c)(6)(ii) certification stays with the employer.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your asset register
- Two signers
- Edition-bound
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Maintenance evidence
AGT-AF-05 · Agent Care available after launch