Assess the station record
Review available measurements, identify missing or conflicting inputs, and retain the company's original Pass/Fail result alongside the analysis.
View the CP case studyCathodic protection / Asset integrity
Cathodic protection.
Clear review priorities.
Organize station readings, surface incomplete or conflicting evidence, and prioritize specialist review. The workflow combines a documented scoring rubric with advisory AI while preserving the source records behind each finding.
Pilot review frameworkReview framework awaiting specialist approval
From station evidence to review priorities
01Understand the sourceKeep the company's original records and labels intact.
02Show the logicDocument each score, coverage rule, and uncertainty flag.
03Make review easierGive the specialist a focused queue and a clear reason to look.
Human judgment stays in the loop.
CP review workflow
From survey data to a traceable review queue.
A consistent process for inspecting evidence, documenting priorities, and directing specialist attention.
Explain the review priority
Keep the condition grade, advisory urgency, and evidence flags visible. Document the rule and source behind each finding for specialist review.
Review the methodArchitecture and operating costs
See how a frontier orchestrator prepares Jev's decisions, how the workflow is validated, and how published API prices affect the operating budget.
Structured CP review
Fast, structured decisions with uncertainty in view.
TypeSafe Jev provides typed decisions with probabilities and confidence. In this project, it gave each de-identified record an advisory review-urgency score while keeping its answer distribution available for inspection.
That fits repeatable triage well. A frontier API model in a Codex-style agent workflow can organize the work and explain the results; deterministic code owns the rubric; Jev handles a narrowly defined decision across many records. A fine-tuned model running locally could join a future version of this stack after its own evaluation on approved data.
TypeSafe's own published workflow evaluations report strong speed and accuracy for this kind of structured decision. We have not measured a CP-specific speedup or validated Jev's urgency against specialist-labeled station outcomes.
CP pilot findings
A better way to review CP station records.
A transparent draft rubric and review queue for cathodic protection data, built from a supplied workbook and a CP3's explanation of the measurements.
155location records reviewed
81provisional grades supported by the draft rules
74left unscored where core evidence was insufficient
111rows surfaced with at least one review flag
Traceable review: the draft separates a calculated condition grade from the company's original Pass/Fail result, and shows where a specialist needs to resolve missing or conflicting evidence. These are aggregate project figures; station-level records are shared privately.
The proposed CP rubric
Documented factors. Explicit grade bands.
A CP3's column explanation supplies the measurement meanings and the −850 mV and 100 mV reference points. The factor weights and A–F bands are our proposed review framework, ready for specialist calibration and approval.
Seven weighted factors
| Factor | Weight |
|---|---|
| Instant-off potential | 35% |
| Polarization decay | 25% |
| Isolation status | 15% |
| Current adequacy | 10% |
| On-potential consistency | 5% |
| IR contribution | 5% |
| Resistance peer consistency | 5% |
Condition grade bands
| Grade | Score |
|---|---|
| A | 80–100 |
| B | 60–<80 |
| C | 40–<60 |
| D | 20–<40 |
| F | 0–<20 |
At a boundary, the score enters the higher grade: 20 is D, 40 is C, 60 is B, and 80 is A. Missing core evidence is Unscored, never an automatic F.
How this guides review: eligible rows can be sorted from lowest condition score upward; the factor detail shows which weighted inputs pulled a score down. Unscored or conflicting records stay in a separate review queue. The company's original Pass/Fail remains visible, while Jev's urgency is a separate advisory signal for when a specialist should look.
Interactive browser demo
Try the condition review tool.
Load fictional station records, change a reading, and see the draft score, evidence coverage, and explanation update.
Open your own normalized CSV locally, record review notes, and download results. Files stay in your browser. This version calculates the condition rubric; live Jev urgency and the full XLSX workflow remain in the local application.
Shared project knowledge
Cortex Cathodic Protection Project Wiki
Browse the measurement workflow, provisional rubric, review requirements, decisions, and lessons learned in one searchable reference.
Open the wiki in your browser or download an editable copy for the team. Proposed rules and unresolved questions remain clearly marked for specialist review.
Built for CP teams
Evidence, priorities, and review in one workflow.
The proposed platform connects CP survey records with documented evaluation criteria, customer procedures, and a specialist review queue.
Implementation is scoped around the customer's data, approved rules, reporting needs, and privacy requirements. The current pilot provides a concrete basis for validating the workflow before operational use.
Review controls
Traceable findings. Defined responsibility.
- Retain source readings and original company outcomes.
- Document the applicable criteria and calculations.
- Surface missing evidence and uncertain judgments.
- Require specialist approval of the operating rules.
Specialist validation
A traceable workflow for specialist review.
The CP framework is a draft for engineering review. The rubric, source questions, and toolchain are documented here so a specialist can challenge the assumptions and shape the final version.