Knowledge & reasoning / PROPOSED CONCEPT
Submittal evidence checker.
Specification-to-submittal comparison. Revision-aware evidence.
The opportunity
A real need.
A considered response.
A supplier submittal must be checked against the correct specification and drawing revision. A checker can locate conflicting values and missing evidence before an engineer reviews compliance.
DESIGNED AROUND
Project engineers and document controllers.
What would this look like for you?
Ask the architect to connect this concept to your systems, or challenge its assumptions.
The experience
What this could make possible.
Revision-aware evidence
Missing-property checks
Engineer review log
01
Choose the current specification
→02
Read the supplier submission
→03
Locate evidence and discrepancies
→04
Prepare engineer review
Under the surface
The engineering
behind the experience.
Architecture is a starting hypothesis. Discovery and representative tests decide what belongs in the first build.
POTENTIAL CONNECTIONSCommon data environmentSpecification librarySubmittal register
01Architecture to explore+
- Versioned document ingestion and OCR
- Unit-normalised property extraction
- Deterministic requirement comparison
- Source-page citations and review decisions
02Integration dependencies+
Common data environment, Specification library, Submittal register. Confirm access, data ownership, update frequency and failure behaviour during discovery.
03Validation and human control+
Check missed discrepancies, unit errors and references to superseded documents. Engineering compliance and safety decisions remain with qualified professionals.
A useful first step
Start small.
Learn something real.
One equipment package with historical approved and rejected submittals.
Evidence to look for
Check missed discrepancies, unit errors and references to superseded documents.
A boundary to design for
Engineering compliance and safety decisions remain with qualified professionals.
Proposed scope, not a delivery commitment. Data, permissions, operational constraints and sector requirements need review before implementation.
Connected capabilities
AI Agents & Workflow AutomationKnowledge & Document AIBackend, API & Integration EngineeringResearch behind the direction
Autodesk / Statista Plus ResearchState of Design & Make: Digital Transformation Pulse ↗AnthropicBuilding effective agents ↗AnthropicDemystifying evals for AI agents ↗These sources inform technical possibilities. They do not demonstrate a Tomatrix deployment or endorse this proposed product.
From possibility to a conversation
Make this
your starting point.
Add a little context. Preview a practical brief, then keep it for a conversation with Tomatrix.
Built locally from this concept. No AI service is called and nothing is submitted. Please leave out confidential information.
Preview your concept brief
PRODUCT EXPLORATION: Submittal evidence checker Status: Proposed concept — scope and feasibility to be agreed. Our context: To be discussed. Who this could help: Project engineers and document controllers. A useful first pilot: One equipment package with historical approved and rejected submittals. What to evaluate: Check missed discrepancies, unit errors and references to superseded documents. Important boundary: Engineering compliance and safety decisions remain with qualified professionals. Integrations to explore: Common data environment, Specification library, Submittal register Concept reference: /products/submittal-checker
Keep exploring
Related possibilities.
PROPOSED CONCEPT
Workshop evidence copilot ↗
Fault-code evidence retrieval. Vehicle-specific bulletin matching.
PROPOSED CONCEPT
Prior-authorisation workbench ↗
Requirement-to-evidence mapping. Missing-document review.
PROPOSED CONCEPT
Curriculum planning studio ↗
Objective-to-lesson mapping. Source-grounded activities.