Public report sample. Retained results from one dairy delivery, with local paths and source files omitted. Read the explanation.

AI risk triage

This reviews selected declared items. It cannot turn missing evidence or a scripted failure into a pass. Low still requires review.

Execution: Completed. Model: gpt-6-astra.

Item / original result	Model recommendation	Applied routing / level	Reason and evidence	Human decision
Metres, Z-up, explicit stage units (brief s.7)PASS	Routine handling	Routine handling Not applicable	The supplied measurement directly confirms authored Z-up and metersPerUnit = 1.0. No unresolved interpretation is identified for this metadata requirement. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Incorrect metadata could cause scale or orientation errors during scene exchange; the supplied check supports the required settings.", "missing_context": [], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "obligation:units-axes", "check:spec.units" ], "risk_reason": null, "owner_policy": { "item_id": "units-axes", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Applied the recommendation under the caller's selected policy." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Equipment, pipes, structure, annotations, lights, cameras in separate named groups (s.7)PASS	Routine handling	Insufficient context Not applicable	The check identifies all six required named Xform groups. Routine content verification remains necessary because counting groups does not establish correct placement of their contents. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Misgrouped content could make editing or visibility controls inconvenient despite the correct group names.", "missing_context": [ "Verification that the required asset categories are actually separated within the named groups." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "obligation:named-groups", "check:spec.groups" ], "risk_reason": null, "owner_policy": { "item_id": "named-groups", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Routine handling needs caller permission and no declared missing context." ] }	No triage decision recorded
>= 2.2 m head clearance where pipes cross walking routes (s.4)PASS	Routine handling	Insufficient context Not applicable	All 31 registered crossing checks report PASS against the 2.2 m envelope. The supplied L-308 crossing measurement, for example, leaves approximately 0.369 m above that envelope. Checking crossing-list completeness is an evidence task; no unresolved owner tolerance is disclosed here. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "An omitted crossing could misrepresent the declared walking-route clearance in layout discussions.", "missing_context": [ "Confirmation that the builder's crossing analysis includes every pipe crossing of every walking route.", "Coverage beyond the registered whole-segment bounding-box comparisons." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "obligation:head-clearance", "check:spec.headroom.l-308.s2.a4_east" ], "risk_reason": null, "owner_policy": { "item_id": "head-clearance", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Routine handling needs caller permission and no declared missing context." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Building approx. 24 m x 16 m, 6 m clear height (s.1)PASS	Human review needed	Human review needed Low	Measured interior gaps are 24 m, 16 m and 6 m, matching the stated defaults. However, the producer explicitly leaves the minimum-only interpretation of 'approximately' pending owner review; the measurements do not approve that interpretation. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "The acceptance rule could permit an oversized building in later checks even though the supplied dimensions match the current target.", "missing_context": [ "Owner decision on the pending minimum-only interpretation.", "An accepted upper bound or two-sided tolerance if approximate dimensions are to be checked." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:envelope", "check:spec.env.x", "check:spec.env.y", "check:spec.env.z" ], "risk_reason": "The measured dimensions match the brief, so the supported issue is a limited, reversible acceptance-rule choice that a brief owner check can settle, consistent with the low rubric.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "envelope", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Applied the recommendation under the caller's selected policy." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Equipment and overhead connections fit under the roof (s.4)PASS	Routine handling	Insufficient context Not applicable	The seven selected roof-gap checks pass their nonnegative-gap criterion. Cable-tray bounds reach the roof underside with a measured zero gap; that is a pass under the supplied criterion, not evidence of positive separation. Full coverage needs routine verification. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Unchecked equipment or overhead connections could extend through the roof and undermine the illustrated layout.", "missing_context": [ "Evidence that the selected items bound the heights of all equipment and overhead connections." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "obligation:fits-building", "check:spec.fits.5", "check:spec.fits.6" ], "risk_reason": null, "owner_policy": { "item_id": "fits-building", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Routine handling needs caller permission and no declared missing context." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Reserved areas: milk skid ~5x3 m, cream skid ~3x2 m, CIP ~4x3 m (s.3)PASS	Human review needed	Human review needed Low	Frame measurements pass the producer's 5 cm tolerance: approximately 5.02 × 3.02 m, 3 × 2 m and 4 × 3 m. The producer leaves that tolerance and use of frame dimensions pending owner confirmation. Frame footprints alone do not establish overall reserved areas. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Accepting the frame proxy without clarification could overstate the space reserved for the complete skid assemblies.", "missing_context": [ "Owner decision on the pending 5 cm tolerance and frame-footprint interpretation.", "Evidence relating complete assembly extents to the reserved areas." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:skid-reserves", "check:spec.reserve.hx101", "check:spec.reserve.hx201", "check:spec.reserve.cip401" ], "risk_reason": "The measured footprints closely match the illustrative targets. Settling the disclosed tolerance and proxy is a limited, reversible owner decision under the low rubric; this does not establish the missing assembly coverage.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "skid-reserves", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Applied the recommendation under the caller's selected policy." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Principal pipes meet equipment nozzles (s.3) / connect to visible ports (s.8)PASS	Human review needed	Human review needed Medium	Registered checks report passing transformed endpoint distances, with supplied examples showing zero sampled gap. They do not inspect mesh contact or visible nozzle connections. The producer also explicitly leaves the 1 mm tolerance pending owner review. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Pipes could appear disconnected or disappear into housings despite coincident reference points, undermining the required connected-process explanation.", "missing_context": [ "Owner decision on the pending 1 mm tolerance.", "Visual or mesh evidence that principal pipe ends meet visible nozzle geometry.", "Confirmation that the registered endpoints cover all principal equipment connections." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:pipe-port-connections", "check:spec.conn.l-101.start", "check:spec.conn.l-101.end" ], "risk_reason": "The obligation explicitly limits checks to transforms, while the brief makes visible connections central to process understanding. A mismatch could invalidate that explanatory use or require geometry rework, meeting the medium rubric.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "pipe-port-connections", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "Applied the recommendation under the caller's selected policy." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Brushed stainless equipment/pipework, painted motors/cabinets, epoxy floor (s.5)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Low	Representative material bindings and shader identities pass, but rendered appearance remains explicitly subject to reviewer judgment. The producer also discloses painted blue PHE frames as a visual choice. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Finishes could look unlike the requested stainless, painted and epoxy surfaces or reduce visual distinction between components.", "missing_context": [ "Rendered appearance evidence in the intended viewer.", "Reviewer judgment on finish realism, roughness variation and the painted PHE frames." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:materials", "check:spec.materials" ], "risk_reason": "The disclosed finish choices concern reversible surface presentation, with representative bindings already supported. A brief owner visual check can settle those choices, consistent with the low rubric.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "materials", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Readable equipment tags (s.5)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Low	Four selected tag images decode successfully, but decoding does not establish text correctness or in-scene readability. The obligation explicitly retains separate visual review. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Viewers could struggle to identify equipment or associate tags with the intended assets.", "missing_context": [ "Views showing equipment tags at the intended viewing distances and output resolution.", "Review of tag content, placement, occlusion and coverage across equipment." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "obligation:label-textures", "check:spec.tex.sep-101", "check:spec.tex.hx-101", "check:spec.tex.tk-301", "check:spec.tex.cip-401" ], "risk_reason": "For equipment-tag presentation, a brief visual check can settle readability and identify reversible label adjustments. This fits the low rubric; successful decoding itself is not evidence of low risk or legibility.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "label-textures", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Trace raw milk to separator and both streams to their own treatment and storage (s.8)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Medium	This obligation has no registered measurement and explicitly requires visual review. The producer describes the intended arrangement and separate PHE passages, but those claims do not establish that a viewer can trace the delivered routes. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "An unclear split, apparent mixing or incorrect treatment-to-storage route could defeat the scene's central explanatory purpose.", "missing_context": [ "Preview or scene-view evidence tracing reception through separation and both product branches.", "Reviewer confirmation that routes remain distinguishable without opening the hierarchy." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:trace-routes" ], "risk_reason": "The brief makes route tracing a central intended use, and the obligation records it as unreviewed. Failure could invalidate the explanation or require substantial routing and presentation changes, matching the medium rubric.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "trace-routes", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Forward and diversion routes visible; no raw-milk bypass into storage (s.8)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Medium	The producer claims separate returns from DV-101 to BT-101 and DV-201 to TK-201. No supplied review establishes their visibility or excludes a depicted raw-milk bypass; the original human-review requirement remains open. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "The scene could teach an incorrect forward/diversion arrangement or imply untreated product reaches finished storage.", "missing_context": [ "Views tracing both forward paths and both return paths.", "Connection evidence and reviewer confirmation that the depicted routes exclude raw-milk bypass into finished storage." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:forward-diversion" ], "risk_reason": "The brief explicitly requires these routes to communicate the process correctly, and the obligation remains unreviewed. A misleading depiction could invalidate the educational use, supporting medium rather than an invented physical-operation consequence.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "forward-diversion", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Plate pack, holding section and separator recognizable in close-up (s.8)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Medium	Recognizability explicitly requires visual review. The producer reports rebuilding the plate pack after aliasing, but neither that work history nor descriptions establish the final close-up result. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Viewers might not recognize the separator, plate pack or holding section, and achieving the required realism could require substantial remodeling.", "missing_context": [ "Final close-up views of the plate pack, holding sections and separator.", "Reviewer judgment against the brief's recognizable-equipment requirement." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:recognizable" ], "risk_reason": "Recognizable equipment is fundamental to the requested realistic explanation, and the producer describes geometry changes addressing an appearance issue. Failure could invalidate that use or require substantial remodeling, fitting the medium rubric.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "recognizable", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded
Usable lighting and legible labels (s.8)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Medium	Usable lighting and label legibility remain explicitly unreviewed. The producer reports moving obstructive signs and previously invisible separation labels, but final view quality is not supplied. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Important equipment or process information could remain hidden or unreadable in the required overview and detail views.", "missing_context": [ "Final overview and detail previews at delivery resolution.", "Reviewer confirmation of lighting, contrast, label visibility and readability in those views." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:lighting-labels" ], "risk_reason": "The producer discloses earlier occlusion and visibility problems affecting required views. If unresolved, they could make the scene unsuitable for explanation and presentations, meeting the medium rubric; their persistence is not established.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "lighting-labels", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded
No obvious intersections or floating assets (s.8)UNKNOWN	Human review needed	Human review needed Medium	The obligation has no registered measurement and requires visual review. The producer reports correcting sign-versus-pipe clashes, which does not establish the absence of other intersections or floating assets. Consequence, missing context and policy { "possible_consequence": "Visible intersections or unsupported-looking assets could undermine the realistic layout and require geometry or routing changes.", "missing_context": [ "Final scene-view coverage of equipment, pipework, structure and supports.", "Reviewer findings on obvious intersections and floating assets after the reported corrections." ], "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions", "obligation:no-clashes" ], "risk_reason": "The producer's disclosed sign-pipe clashes establish a relevant geometry concern, while final coverage remains unreviewed. Remaining clashes could compromise layout discussion or require substantial geometry and routing rework, consistent with the medium rubric.", "owner_policy": { "item_id": "no-clashes", "allow_routine_handling": true, "mandatory_human_review": false, "reason": "Exploratory routing for the original illustrative layout and explanation brief; no engineering or production release approval. Preserve original required review and evidence gaps.", "review_guidance": "Use the original brief and producer disclosures. Judge consequences for this stated illustrative use, not an invented operational plant use. A documented producer choice is a claim to examine, not a verified fact. Explain whether a further human decision or evidence is needed.", "evidence_ids": [ "brief", "producer-decisions" ] }, "applied_policy_reasons": [ "A caller-required review cannot be waived by the model." ] }	No triage decision recorded

Risk definitions

Applied rubric

{
  "low": "Limited, reversible impact; a brief owner check can settle the choice.",
  "medium": "Could invalidate the intended use or require substantial rework; review the basis before relying on it.",
  "high": "Could have serious consequences for physical operation or a consequential decision; require qualified domain review."
}

Items not triaged

[]