STATEMETHOD

Illustrative workflow / one possible configuration

Map specification requirements to the submitted evidence.

Compare bounded requirements with submitted evidence and route every mismatch to a Technical Manager.

Explore the workflow One example configuration · synthetic data · Interactive reference
Audience
Technical managers · Design managers · Package engineers
Workflow owner
Technical Manager
Input
Approved specification sections and product evidence
Final artifact
Approved compliance matrix with exceptions

01 / Compliance review path

Compare each requirement without hiding missing evidence.

Specification requirements and submitted evidence run as parallel branches. Certificate and identity checks join them before the Technical Manager assigns the professional disposition for each row.

Select a synthetic scenario

Synthetic case / SM-SPEC-061/F-12 / Primary view
NEEDS REVIEW
Specification Compliance Review — Needs reviewA controlled exception is waiting for the named owner. No output has been issued. Current reason code: CLASSIFICATION_MAPPING_UNCLEAR. The topology contains 10 icon nodes and 15 directed connections. Current node: Technical gate. Focus a node to inspect its lane and responsibility.requirementsrequirementsevidenceevidenceclausesclausesdocumentsdocumentsvalid clausesvalid clausesvalid evidencevalid evidencecandidate matrixcandidate matrixhuman judgmenthuman judgmentapprovebaseline gapbaseline gapcorrect clausecorrect clauseFreeze review case: Lock specification and submittal01Freeze review caseIntegration / toolExtract requirements: Create atomic cited clauses02ExtractrequirementsModel-assistedInventory evidence: Extract product and certificate facts03Inventory evidenceModel-assistedClause control: Check approved revision and citations04Clause controlDeterministic controlCertificate control: Check identity, scope and validity05Certificate controlDeterministic controlMap evidence: Propose clause-to-source mappings06Map evidenceModel-assistedDisposition router: Route gaps, conflicts and candidates07Disposition routerDeterministic controlTechnical gate: Technical Manager judges every row08Technical gateHuman approvalIssue matrix: Publish approved compliance matrix09Issue matrixControlled outputResolve exception: Request evidence or clarification10Resolve exceptionRecovery route
Human approval / Technical authority / activeTechnical gate

Technical Manager judges every row

State: NEEDS REVIEWReason: CLASSIFICATION_MAPPING_UNCLEARA controlled exception is waiting for the named owner. No output has been issued.
  • completed
  • active
  • blocked
  • pending

Primary route first · expand controls only when needed

02 / Value hypothesis

Less handling. More deciding.

This planning model separates machine preparation from remaining human review. It is not a measured result.

Before / manual handling

2h 30m
  1. 01Build matrixCopy requirements into a review table.
  2. 02Search evidenceFind relevant product claims and certificates.
  3. 03Record gapsWrite comments and follow-up requests.

After / controlled preparation

AI-assisted preparation
8m
Remaining human review
32m
Potential time returned / case
1h 50m
  1. Map evidence. The workflow links requirements to candidate sources.
  2. Review exceptions. The Technical Manager decides compliance status.
  3. Issue matrix. Approved judgments and unknowns stay visible.

Your volume / adjustable

Illustrative estimate
Calculated monthly time returned79h

1h 50m × 10 cases × 4.33 weeks, rounded to the nearest hour.

03 / Live compliance run

Each requirement lands in an evidence-backed disposition row.

Run a synthetic requirement and product submission through citation, identity and classification checks to generate a compliance disposition row.

SYNTHETIC CASE / SM-SPEC-061/F-12 / NEEDS REVIEW
READY TO RUN
01 / Input data

Specification clause, product sheet and certificate

SPEC 07 21 00 / 7.4

Thermal insulation performance

Submitted insulation shall achieve reaction-to-fire Class B-s1,d0 or an approved directly equivalent classification.
ThermaBoard 90TB90-R2 / Product sheet Rev 4

Reaction to fireRegional class R2Product sheet §3.2

Thermal conductivity0.022 W/mKProduct sheet §4.1

Product thickness90 mmSchedule TB-04

Synthetic product sheet and specification clause

02 / Controls

Executed checks

  1. Requirement citationWaiting to run
  2. Evidence identityWaiting to run
  3. ClassificationWaiting to run
03 / Generated result

Requirement-to-evidence compliance matrix

No run yet

The result will be generated from the visible synthetic rows.

All rows, checks and outputs in this run are synthetic. They demonstrate executable workflow behavior and authority boundaries, not analysis of client documents or measured production performance.

04 / Explicit authority

The system prepares. The named owner decides.

Permission matrix for Specification Compliance Review
AuthorityPermissionOperating scopeStatus
ModelMap product claims to bounded requirementsPrepare a bounded proposal and cite available evidence.✓ May
SoftwareCheck versions, identifiers, certificates and citationsEnforce deterministic rules, state transitions and action limits.✓ May
ModelResolve conflicting source evidenceConflicts must stop or route to the named human owner.× May not
HumanDetermine and approve compliance statusOnly an authorized Technical Manager can approve the final artifact.✓ May

Deterministic checks

  • Specification version is approved
  • Mandatory certificates are present
  • Product identifiers agree across evidence
  • Every compliance status has a source citation

Model-assisted actions

  • Extract requirement candidates
  • Map product claims to requirements
  • Draft compliant, exception or unknown status
  • Summarize conflicting evidence

Human approval gate

The Technical Manager confirms each compliance judgment and owns any request for further technical evidence.

Failure and recovery

Outdated specifications, missing certificates or contradictory evidence stop issue and route to technical clarification.

05 / Decision ledger

Reconstruct the displayed decision.

This synthetic ledger changes with the scenario. Its final decision event records the same state and reason shown in the workflow canvas.

Displayed state
NEEDS REVIEW
Reason code
CLASSIFICATION_MAPPING_UNCLEAR
Approval owner
Technical Manager
Synthetic event log for the Needs review scenario
EventActorResultEvidenceTime
case.receivedIntake serviceInput hash recordedSM-SPEC-061/F-12
validation.completedRules engineRequired fields checkedSM-SPEC-061/F-12
exception.detectedRules engineCLASSIFICATION_MAPPING_UNCLEARSM-SPEC-061/F-12
review.requestedWorkflow serviceTechnical Manager assigned—
case.review_requiredState reducerCLASSIFICATION_MAPPING_UNCLEAR—

06 / Related workflows

01 / Information management

RFI & Submittal Intake

Normalize incoming RFIs and submittals, detect missing fields and route a complete record for coordinator approval.

RFI or submittal email, form and attachments → Approved intake record and assigned review route

02 / Design coordination

Construction Document & Drawing Review

Check drawing packages, surface revision conflicts and issue only a human-approved review record.

Drawing package, schedules and revision register → Approved, evidence-linked review record

03 / Preconstruction

Tender Review

Structure tender requirements, surface submission risks and prepare a controlled qualification record.

Tender invitation, schedules, specifications and amendments → Approved tender review and qualification register

Browse all workflow examples

Example set / not a fixed catalogue

Your workflow can start somewhere else.

The eight detailed examples demonstrate reusable patterns, not the limits of the service. State Method maps the real process around your documents, recurring decisions, system touchpoints and named approval boundaries.

01 / Other processes we can map

Project and design

  • Meeting minutes and action tracking
  • Design comment coordination
  • Change control and instruction review
  • Document distribution and approvals

02 / Other processes we can map

Commercial and procurement

  • Supplier and quotation comparison
  • Payment application review
  • Variation evidence preparation
  • Procurement package coordination

03 / Other processes we can map

Site, quality and compliance

  • Inspection and test records
  • Defect and NCR management
  • Safety observation reporting
  • Environmental evidence reporting
Discuss another workflow

Start with a repetitive process, its evidence and the person who must retain authority. It does not need to match one of these examples.

Assessment / human-reviewed intake

Assess one compliance check.

Define the exact requirement set, acceptable evidence, named technical authority and current review baseline.

Assess one workflowReview the diagnostic

Share business context only. Do not submit documents, credentials, confidential architecture, sensitive personal data or client information.