Approved safety procedures
Highest authority for hazardous work. Answers may not contradict these controls.
BindingDeploy a field-service knowledge assistant that remains useful under operational pressure without producing unsupported or unsafe repair guidance.
Titan maintains complex industrial equipment at customer sites. Experienced technicians solve many issues from memory, while newer technicians search across manuals, service bulletins, parts catalogs, and old work orders.
The mission asks the learner to deploy an AI-assisted retrieval workflow that clearly exposes evidence, respects document authority, handles conflicting sources, and escalates when the system cannot answer safely.
The corpus is designed so the most readable source is not always the safest and the most authoritative source is not always the most current.
Highest authority for hazardous work. Answers may not contradict these controls.
BindingMay supersede older manuals for specific equipment models and serial ranges.
Authoritative and time-sensitiveComprehensive but potentially outdated when newer bulletins exist.
Approved with version checksOperationally useful observations with inconsistent quality and incomplete verification.
Contextual evidenceConcise, practical, and sometimes unsafe. Cannot silently override approved procedure.
Unverified field knowledgeThe system is evaluated as an operational product, not merely on whether an LLM can produce fluent answers.
Parse, classify, version, deduplicate, and attach equipment applicability metadata.
Resolve model numbers, serial ranges, aliases, and component relationships before retrieval.
Rank by authority, recency, equipment match, safety relevance, and semantic relevance.
Expose source passages, version dates, authority level, uncertainty, and conflicts.
Block unsupported procedural synthesis and route hazardous or ambiguous cases to human review.
Collect corrections without allowing unreviewed feedback to alter approved procedure.
A strong evaluation set includes answerable, ambiguous, outdated, conflicting, and safety-critical cases.
| Metric | What it tests | Target behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Citation accuracy | Whether claims are supported by the displayed source passages. | Unsupported claims are treated as failures. |
| Retrieval relevance | Whether the returned sources match equipment, issue, and procedure context. | Authority and applicability outweigh generic semantic similarity. |
| Unsupported-answer rate | How often the system invents or overextends beyond evidence. | Near zero for procedural claims. |
| Safety escalation accuracy | Whether hazardous or conflicting cases reach human review. | High recall with documented false-positive tradeoffs. |
| Outdated-source usage | Whether superseded documents influence answers improperly. | Newer bulletins visibly override older manuals. |
| Abstention quality | Whether the system refuses clearly and usefully when evidence is insufficient. | Refusal includes missing information and next action. |
| User correction rate | How often technicians identify a wrong mapping, source, or answer. | Corrections enter a governed review queue. |
| Latency and cost | Whether the workflow remains usable in field conditions. | Targets reflect limited connectivity and device constraints. |
The complication is released after the first retrieval and answer-policy checkpoint.
Pilot technicians consistently prefer answers grounded in informal work-order notes because they are shorter and more practical. Several of those notes describe unofficial shortcuts that bypass safety checks or use obsolete parts.
Required response: revise source ranking, answer composition, warnings, feedback handling, and escalation. Preserve the useful field context without allowing unapproved notes to become procedural authority.
Safer but may reduce usefulness and technician adoption.
Use notes as supporting context while preventing them from generating instructions.
Promote useful field practices only after expert validation and document governance.
Show disagreements among sources rather than silently selecting one answer.
The public specification is complete. The gated corpus, evaluation cases, and starter implementation are the next production work.
Decision, source hierarchy, required workflow, complication, and evaluation dimensions.
Manuals, bulletins, work orders, technician notes, versions, and model mappings.
Ingestion pipeline, vector retrieval, authority filters, citations, and evaluation harness.
Test cases, pilot metrics, hidden complication, reviewer anchors, and defense questions.
Help test whether the evidence hierarchy, safety cases, and evaluation workload reflect real production AI deployment.