Knowledge & reasoning / PROPOSED CONCEPT
Workshop evidence copilot.
Fault-code evidence retrieval. Vehicle-specific bulletin matching.
The opportunity
A real need.
A considered response.
Fault codes, repair history and manufacturer bulletins sit in different places. A technician needs the relevant evidence and its applicability before choosing a diagnostic procedure.
DESIGNED AROUND
Qualified workshop technicians and technical support teams.
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.
Vehicle-specific bulletin matching
Source-linked repair context
Technician review notes
01
Capture vehicle context
→02
Retrieve applicable evidence
→03
Compare service history
→04
Prepare a technician brief
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 CONNECTIONSDiagnostic-tool exportOEM technical informationWorkshop job cards
01Architecture to explore+
- OBD/DTC record normalisation
- Permission-aware retrieval over licensed service manuals
- Applicability filters for model year and powertrain
- Cited evidence with explicit unknowns
02Integration dependencies+
Diagnostic-tool export, OEM technical information, Workshop job cards. Confirm access, data ownership, update frequency and failure behaviour during discovery.
03Validation and human control+
Check bulletin applicability, citation precision and unsafe or unsupported procedure suggestions. Qualified technicians choose tests and repairs. The copilot does not certify roadworthiness or control the vehicle.
A useful first step
Start small.
Learn something real.
One vehicle family and historical diagnostic cases with known service outcomes.
Evidence to look for
Check bulletin applicability, citation precision and unsafe or unsupported procedure suggestions.
A boundary to design for
Qualified technicians choose tests and repairs. The copilot does not certify roadworthiness or control the vehicle.
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
NHTSAInvestigation, recall and manufacturer-communication resources ↗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: Workshop evidence copilot Status: Proposed concept — scope and feasibility to be agreed. Our context: To be discussed. Who this could help: Qualified workshop technicians and technical support teams. A useful first pilot: One vehicle family and historical diagnostic cases with known service outcomes. What to evaluate: Check bulletin applicability, citation precision and unsafe or unsupported procedure suggestions. Important boundary: Qualified technicians choose tests and repairs. The copilot does not certify roadworthiness or control the vehicle. Integrations to explore: Diagnostic-tool export, OEM technical information, Workshop job cards Concept reference: /products/workshop-diagnostics
Keep exploring
Related possibilities.
PROPOSED CONCEPT
Prior-authorisation workbench ↗
Requirement-to-evidence mapping. Missing-document review.
PROPOSED CONCEPT
Curriculum planning studio ↗
Objective-to-lesson mapping. Source-grounded activities.
PROPOSED CONCEPT
Permit application navigator ↗
Official-source explanations. Application readiness checklist.