Main site

Manufacturing AI agent · Product compliance

Product-Compliance & Material-Declarations AI Agent

Collect and keep supplier declarations current, screen the bill of materials against the lists in force, chase what is missing, and assemble the pack a named compliance officer signs.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Officer signs
Evidence-first
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Assembles the evidence, not the signature

In

  1. 01

    A part joins the bill of materials, and its declarations are pulled from the supplier portal, PLM or a flat file.

  2. 02

    A declaration arrives as IPC-1752A, a CMRT or free text, and is normalised to substance, scope and material level.

Reason

  1. 03

    A bill of materials is screened, and the pack behind a customer or regulator request is assembled from the result.

  2. 04

    A RoHS claim is read per homogeneous material under Directive 2011/65/EU — a part-level average is not the test.

  3. 05

    A substance joins the ECHA Candidate List, and the Article 7(2), 33 and SCIP duties are re-run, not just noted.

Decide

  1. 06

    A PFAS record from the 2011–2022 lookback is reconstructed now, since 40 CFR 705.20 can open on 60 days' notice.

  2. 07

    A supplier answers none detected, and the agent separates tested, out of scope and never asked.

Out

  1. 08

    A declaration that is stale, expired or signed without authority is routed to the named compliance officer.

  2. 09

    A write happens only inside the approval boundaries agreed at implementation, and never as a signed statement.

Product statement

The agent assembles the evidence; a named compliance officer signs, and the manufacturer stays the economic operator of record.

Example workflow

One part, declaration to pack

  1. 1Declaration request raisedPart master, BOM change, customer request or a Candidate List update
  2. 2Evidence gatheredSupplier declarations, test reports, dates, scope and signatory, each with its source
  3. 3Screening proposedSubstance, material level, declaration scope and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedScope checks, per-material threshold rules, declaration-currency checks and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the officer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the compliance officer to approve.

Low confidence

Adds a materials-engineer read first.

Officer approval

The screening is held with its declarations, their scope and the confidence.

Approve · Amend · Send to materials review

Approved — released to the pack

  1. 6Compliance systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedAmendments, gap closure, customer-audit findings and corrections after a pack was issued

Amendments

Officer amendments are counted, including corrections raised after a pack went out.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Signing the EU declaration of conformity or affixing CE marking.
    • Certifying a TSCA submission or signing a Form SD by 31 May.
    • Deciding that a part conforms on incomplete evidence.
    • Making a substance representation to a customer or regulator.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Screen the bill of materials against the list version in force.
    • ✓Carry each declaration forward with its date, scope and signatory.
    • ✓Apply the per-material thresholds configured for the product.
    • ✓Flag gaps and stale declarations, and hold the pack for the officer.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never as a signed statement.

    • Notifying ECHA under Article 7(2) or submitting a SCIP dossier.
    • Accepting a declaration whose signatory's authority is unproven.
    • Commissioning, interpreting or overriding an analytical test.
  • Changes to threshold rules, list versions or approval boundaries.

Example output

One part, annotated

Everything the agent screens is attached to the declaration it was drawn from.

Screening output · single part

Illustrative example
Part
Plated connector
Declared line
Cadmium below the RoHS limit in the plating layer
Measurement basis
Homogeneous material
Declaration on file
IPC-1752A on file
Confidence
88%
Signatory
Named quality manager

As received

Taken from the supplier declaration and the test report behind it — nothing on this side is asserted by the agent.

Evidence used

  • Signed IPC-1752A
  • Supplier test report
  • Candidate List version

Why this screening

It names the layer the limit is measured in — the line the officer weighs.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the screening picks up a materials read before it.

Action

ApproveAmendSend to materials 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 part

From the declaration on file

03Screening

Screen against the list in force

Draw on the declarations on file and the per-material thresholds configured for the product.

01Approved path

Absent is not the same as absent

Parts with current, in-scope declarations arrive already screened and evidenced.

02Human review

Send review to the thin evidence

Gaps, stale declarations and out-of-scope answers are marked, so the officer's read starts where evidence is thinnest.

04

Build an evidence trail

The substance, the declaration it was drawn from and the officer who signed stay on the part.

Integrations

Typical integrations

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

  • PLM and part master

    • Teamcenter
    • Windchill
    • SAP PLM
    • Arena

  • Compliance data

    • Assent
    • Source Intelligence
    • iPoint
    • Sphera

  • Supplier declarations

    • IPC-1752A
    • IEC 62474
    • CMRT
    • EMRT
    • full disclosure

Agent

Product compliance

  • Reads the declarations
  • Screens the parts
  • Holds for the officer

  • Submission channels

    • ECHA SCIP
    • REACH-IT
    • EPA CDX/CISS
    • SEC EDGAR

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

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

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the signed pack

One layer inside the next, six times over. What still gets past is listed in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull screening back to gap-chasing when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, threshold-rule and list-version changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the declaration, its scope, the screening, the amendments and the approval time.Record
L3Officer approvalHold packs for the named officer; it governs release, not whether the evidence beneath is sound.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest screenings against per-material thresholds and scope rules; a failure returns the screening.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence screenings to a materials read before the officer sees them.Require review
Model coreScreening produced — substance, material level, declaration scope and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a screening may stand
L3
Puts the release in an officer's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the substance and the declaration behind it
L6
Drops to declaration chasing when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the declaration workflow — not only the finished pack.

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

Surface — the pack the customer sees

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid each screened part rest on a declaration that actually covers it?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right list version, threshold and product configuration?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct part and the correct declaration?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence screenings actually attract more officer amendments?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific product families?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many screenings needed an amendment or a correction after the pack went out?

Floor — the outcome the manufacturer answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • RH-03

      Superseded list version

      A part screened against a Candidate List version since replaced.

    Stage gathers

    Declarations, test reports, list versions and part data

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • RH-04

      Part-level acceptance

      A part-level declaration is read as a material-level result.

    • RH-06

      Named-list PFAS scope

      Scoping runs on CAS lists, not the structural definition.

    Stage proposes

    Substance, material level, scope and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • RH-02

      Unauthorised signatory

      Declaration signed by someone with no authority to bind.

    • RH-05

      Sub-tier change unseen

      Supplier re-sources and the declaration stays current.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • RH-01

      Undocumented inquiry

      A no-data answer is recorded without the inquiry behind it.

    Stage returns

    The screening the officer signs and the customer sees

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • RH-07

      Silent threshold drift

      A model or rule change widens what the agent accepts.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, threshold rules and list versions

  • Sev-1 · claim made outside the boundary
  • Sev-2 · unsupported claim reaches the pack
  • Sev-3 · evidence thins, screening to review
See the complete Manufacturing failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

Portfolio coverage can hide one bad family

A portfolio compliance figure can read as sound while a few product families carry nearly all of the unsupported claims. Nestack reports the amendment rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Legacy parts with no declaration8.3%3.6×Review
Plated and coated assemblies6.6%2.9×Review
Distributor-sourced components4.2%1.8×Watch
Machined parts, single source1.3%0.6×Normal

Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. machined-part baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

Nothing closes until a case exists

A cycle is closed when the unsupported claim is a case the next release must survive. That suite is what the next pack assembled is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Amendment rate rises in a product family.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The declaration that said none detected and meant not tested is read back to the cause.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The change leaves with a version on it and the declarations that found it attached.

  4. 04

    Verify

    The release stays shut while any touched declaration case is still red.

  5. 05

    Learn

    It is held permanently, and the substance rules shift with it.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. Whatever is detected next meets a longer suite than this one did.

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, screening workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

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

  1. 01Compliance workflow and boundary scoping and boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02PLM, ERP and supplier-portal assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Threshold, list-version and exemption mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Declaration ingestion and normalisation.Week 2
  5. 05Screening logic and declaration binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and gap routing.Week 3
  7. 07Officer approval workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08PLM and compliance-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Substance and declaration cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and disclosure controls.Week 4
  11. 11Part-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 product familyProductionProduction compliance systemsAdvancedMultiple regimes / sites
Introduced at Pilot
Screening to your parts and rules✓✓✓
Officer approval✓✓✓
Declaration-coverage baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by product family—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Part-master integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Complex exemption rules——✓
Multi-stage officer approvals——✓
High part volume——✓
Multi-regime substance controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, part 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.

  1. 01Your part master and bill-of-materials structure

    Declaration ingestion and part mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative supplier declarations

    Screening baseline, scope extraction and declaration binding

    Week 2

  3. 03Your threshold rules and product-scope decisions

    Threshold, list-version and automation-boundary mapping

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    PLM, ERP and supplier-portal assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Claims you would not want tested

    Disclosure cases and failure-mode testing

    Week 4

  6. 06What no compliance claim may rest on

    Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and approval controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named compliance officers to approve packs

    Officer approval 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 phase spans the weeks it actually consumes, so week 5 is doing two jobs at once.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

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

Week focus

W1Compliance workflow discovery, threshold mapping and the automation boundary

W2Source integration and the screening baseline

W3Screening workflow, confidence logic and approval controls

W4Evaluation suite, scope checks and failure-mode testing

W5Compliance-system integration, pilot families and targeted corrections

W6One declaration campaign run under the compliance manager, then Agent Care handover

Reading the band
A bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is work, not padding.
At the end of W6
The last checks clear on live packs and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Manufacturing AI agent

Build a product-compliance agent around your declaration file.

Show us your part master, your supplier declarations and who signs. Not a compliance verdict from a model — a gap list, a chased declaration and a pack an officer can sign.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your PLM and supplier portal
Officer signs
Evidence-first
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Product compliance & material declarations

AGT-MFG-17 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a product-compliance agent

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

About you
Your parts

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