Telecom AI agent · Broadband data
Broadband Data Collection AI Agent
Pin each availability claim to the fabric version, the serving element and the model behind it, then hold two evidence packs — one for the certifying officer, one for the qualified engineer.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Two signatures
- Location-bound
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Holds the claim, never the certification
In
- 01
A location is claimed as served, and the claim is held with the element that would serve it and the date.
- 02
A fabric version lands, and every claim still resting on the version before it is surfaced.
Reason
- 03
A location counts as served on request within a standard interval, so the claim is about a place nobody serves yet.
- 04
A propagation model runs, and its parameters, antenna heights and clutter assumptions are kept with the result.
- 05
A biannual filing falls due under 47 CFR 1.7004(b), on 1 March and again on 1 September.
Decide
- 06
A status moves from unserved to served with no network change behind it, and that movement is surfaced.
- 07
A challenge arrives, and it runs on the data the provider itself submitted, location by location.
Out
- 08
A materially inaccurate submission reaches § 1.7009(a) — willful, knowing or reckless.
- 09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
The agent assembles and reconciles; a named corporate officer certifies on actual knowledge, a named qualified engineer certifies the model, and the provider answers.
Example workflow
One location, evidence to filing
- 1Availability evidence receivedFabric list, network inventory, model runs or engineering records
- 2Serving element boundEach claimed location tied to the element, the technology and the speed tier reported for it
- 3Evidence packs assembledThe corporate record for the officer and the modelling record for the qualified engineer
- 4Controls appliedFabric-version checks, movement checks, model-parameter checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the regulatory lane opens at the completeness gate.
Goes to the officer and the engineer to certify.
Picks up a regulatory counsel read first.
Regulatory review
The draft is held with the claim, its evidence and the locations that moved.
Release for signature · Append evidence · Send to engineering
Certified — by two named people
- 6Fabric and inventory records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedEvidence completeness, movement without cause, counsel corrections and challenge outcomes
Corrections
Each counsel 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 on actual knowledge under 47 CFR 1.7004(d).
- Certifying the accuracy of the model as an engineer.
- Filing the submission in the Commission portal.
- Deciding that a location is served on request.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Bind each availability claim to the element that would serve the location.
- ✓Hold the fabric version and its as-at date beside every claimed location.
- ✓Reconcile the September filing against the March one, location by location.
- ✓Surface each location whose status moved with no network change behind it.
Nothing is certified or filed except by named people, inside the agreed boundaries.
- Judging that a propagation model is fit to certify.
- Telling a customer that their address is served.
- Answering a challenge on a location record.
- Changes to model parameters or claim rules.
Example output
One location, annotated
Our self-healing remediation agent works on network state; this record is the claim made about it.
Evidence pack · single location
Illustrative example- Location
- Fabric location, rural route
- Claimed as
- Served on request within the standard interval
- Technology
- Licensed fixed wireless
- Model of record
- Propagation run, 12 August 2026
- Confidence
- Held uncertified
- Held for
- The officer and the engineer, in person
As received
Taken from the fabric list and the radio plan of record — it reaches as far as that plan does.
What the record holds
- Fabric version and date
- Serving element and tier
- Model and its parameters
Why no served call here
Actual knowledge is the officer test in 47 CFR 1.7004(d), not a model output.
What the score decides
Below the configured threshold the draft picks up a counsel read before.
Action
Release for signatureAppend evidenceSend to engineeringValue
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 location
From the fabric list that names it
Where the claim ends up
Our dispatch copilot schedules the build and our self-healing agent runs the network; this page proves the claim made about them.
Two signatures, two kinds of knowing
The officer certifies on actual knowledge under 47 CFR 1.7004(d) — narrower than the knowledge, information and belief the universal service worksheet takes.
What the June 2026 item did
FCC 26-33, published 24 June 2026, is a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, comments due 24 July 2026 and replies 24 August 2026; the current elements stand.
Build an evidence trail
The location, the element that would serve it and the two people who signed stay on the filing.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Filing and portal
- Broadband Data Collection portal
- Fabric licence and versions
Network inventory
- OSS
- element and port records
- Build and service records
Modelling systems
- Radio planning
- propagation
- Model parameters and runs
Agent
Broadband availability evidence
- Reads the claim
- Assembles the packs
- Holds for the signers
Map and challenge records
- Challenge case files
- Prior submission history
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six sieves between the model and the filing
Six sieves, and the widest comes first. Whatever is left at the end is written out in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a claim may stand
- L3
- Puts two signatures in two people's hands
- L4 – L5
- Keep the location and the model behind it
- L6
- Holds the location unclaimed when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the pack that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the filing the Commission reads
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the pack record the evidence behind each claimed location?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right fabric version, the right element and the current model run?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct location record and the correct model run?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence packs actually attract more counsel corrections?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific access technologies?
- E6Business outcomeHow many packs needed a correction before the officer certified?
Floor — the outcome the provider answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each set at the stage where it actually begins.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- IQ-03
Stale fabric version
The location list read is not the version now current.
Stage gathers
The locations, the elements, the models and the runs
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- IQ-04
Served asserted, not shown
A location is reported served without evidence.
- IQ-06
Movement without cause
A status moves with no network change behind it.
Stage proposes
The claims, their evidence and their model runs
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- IQ-02
Thin pack passed forward
A pack moves on without the counsel read.
- IQ-05
Model parameters mismatched
The run uses parameters the plan does not hold.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- IQ-01
Filed, evidence unrecorded
The record shows a submission but not what supported it.
Stage returns
The filing two people sign and the Commission reads
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- IQ-07
Silent claim regression
A parameter change moves the claim, not the record.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, claim rules and filing fields
- Sev-1 · a filing leaves without two signers
- Sev-2 · a wrong claim reaches the record
- Sev-3 · source degrades, pack holds unsigned
Affected slices
One technology absorbs the corrections
A technology-level claim-evidence figure can read clean while one technology carries most of the corrections. Nestack reports the counsel-correction rate by access technology, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Licensed fixed wireless | 8.3% | 3.6× | Review | |
| Unlicensed fixed wireless | 5.8% | 2.5× | Review | |
| Hybrid fibre-coaxial | 3.7% | 1.6× | Watch | |
| Fibre to the premises | 1.4% | 0.6× | Normal |
Bar: counsel-correction-rate lift vs. fibre-to-the-premises baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an unshowable served location costs
A cycle closes when the unshowable served location is a regression case. That suite is what the next filing built is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Counsel-correction rate rises in one technology.
- 02
Diagnose
The address the map said was served and the engineer could not have reached is read back until one cause remains.
- 03
Improve
The change is numbered, and the locations that provoked it are filed underneath.
- 04
Verify
One location case still red will hold the whole release.
- 05
Learn
It becomes a permanent case, and the modelling rules change with it.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next filing 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, claim assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Filing-workflow discovery and boundary definition.Week 1
- 02Fabric, inventory and modelling sources.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Serving-element and speed-tier coverage mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Availability evidence ingestion.Week 2
- 05Location, element and model binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Completeness scoring and counsel routing.Week 3
- 07Dual-signature release workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Map and challenge-record integration.Week 5
- 09Model-parameter and fabric cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and dual-signature controls.Week 4
- 11Location-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 technology, one filing | ProductionProduction filing workflow | AdvancedMultiple technologies / states |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Claim assembly to your rules | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Named-signer release | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Fabric-version baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by technology | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Signature workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Network-inventory integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-state availability duties | — | — | ✓ |
| Cross-technology evidence packs | — | — | ✓ |
| High location volume | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-signature accuracy controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction 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 fabric list and its version history
→Location ingestion and element binding
Week 102Representative model runs and their parameters
→Model binding, claim capture and the pack baseline
Week 203Your prior submissions and challenge history
→Claim-rule mapping, model binding and the automation boundary
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Fabric, inventory and modelling source assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Locations you would not want claimed
→Model cases and failure-mode testing
Week 406What no availability claim may assume
→Completeness scoring, counsel routing, guardrails and release controls
Week 307A named officer and a named engineer
→Dual-signature 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
Every bar is the true working span of one phase, so the fifth week has to hold two of them here.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Filing workflow discovery, claim-rule mapping and the automation boundary
W2Source integration and the fabric-version baseline
W3Pack assembly, model binding and release controls
W4Evaluation suite, model cases and failure-mode testing
W5Inventory integration, pilot locations and targeted corrections
W6One filing year run under the certifying officer and the qualified engineer, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- Each bar reaches across only the weeks its own work is named for. The fifth week doubles because the work overlaps.
- At the end of W6
- Once the availability record validates, Agent Care takes over the watch.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Telecom AI agent
Build a broadband data collection agent around a claim two people have to sign.
Show us how a location becomes a served location today and who signs on 1 March. Not a file somebody was told is fine. A certification on actual knowledge under 47 CFR 1.7004(d), with a qualified engineer on the model beside it. The claim surfaces in a proceeding you are not in.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your fabric and network records
- Two signatures
- Location-bound
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Broadband data collection
AGT-TL-21 · Agent Care available after launch