Outcomes Automation / Casework
A small land-services firm under a standing MSA with a major investor-owned electric utility. Engineer's email in, priced scope of work on the utility's template back, every week for more than eighteen months, through engineer turnover, rate-sheet changes, and a full template revision. Volume has grown from a few documents a week to sixteen to twenty as of August 2026.
The client and history are real · Identifying content reconstructed under NDA · Figures as of August 2026
Stage 01
The engineer's email arrives as-is: prose, parcel lists, KMZ files, plan sets, photos. Nobody re-keys any of it.
Stage 02
Parcels, tasks, locations, engineer, due date, and rate references pulled into structured project data. Site photos and satellite imagery get reviewed the way an estimator standing at the site would.
Stage 03
Every task priced from the rate-sheet revision in force on the intake date, checked again at build time.
Stage 04
The document is built on the utility's own Word template, section by required section, formatted to submit.
Stage 05
Line-by-line verification against the source, checklist attached, and a human reviewer signs before anything ships. No document has shipped without it; that is a process record, and corrections are handled under the terms on the process page.
Reconstructed with a fictional project
What arrives
From: field engineer
Subj: reconductor project, 3 parcels, need ISOW
"Two easements to review, one new acquisition. Landowner on parcel 2 runs cattle, gates have to stay closed, he was burned last time. Survey crews want access letters first. Rate sheet rev. C applies. Can we have it this week?"
What ships, next business day (target)
Individual Scope of Work
The cattle-and-gates line in the engineer's email became a written constraint inside the parcel 2 tasks, not a separately priced item and not a lost sentence in an inbox.
Verification checklist, attached to every document
Projected from the eighteen months the pipeline has already run in live utility production
Month 1
Your first live documents ship against real deadlines, on your client's template, audited before you ever see them.
Rate change
Your client revises its rate sheet. At the reference client, the lookup changed with it before the next document shipped.
Turnover
Your engineers rotate; new senders, new writing styles. At the reference client, intake kept parsing through engineer turnover.
Template rev.
Your client revises its template top to bottom. At the reference client, documents shipped on the new format the same week.
Month 12+
Volume grows and the desk keeps pace. The live contract behind this projection grew from a few documents a week to sixteen to twenty.
| Your year, by hand | Your year, on the desk | |
|---|---|---|
| Turnaround | Fit around fieldwork | Next-business-day target from a complete intake |
| Formatting | Formatted by hand each time | The client's template, every time |
| Pricing | Manual lookup | The revision in force, cited on every amount |
| Verification | Re-read by the author | Checklist with the kind of evidence per line, human sign-off |
| Field hours | Spent at the desk | Available for the field, where they bill |
Real cases. Identifying details removed, numbers rounded.
Log 01 · scope of work
One intake, two priced builds, a client deciding with open eyes.
The landowner count could land anywhere from one to ten, so the ISOW shipped as two priced options: a worst-case build on the landowner basis, and a leaner build from the engineer's own task list, with the difference explained.
OutcomeThe client read both and funded the worst case.
Log 02 · change order
A request to amend legacy program work that predated the desk. The change order anchored to the purchase order instead, with the funding history written out line by line.
OutcomeReview followed the math without a phone call.
Log 03 · the audit at work
The audit exists for exactly this document.
A change order got priced against the wrong anchor document. The audit caught it before release, and it was rebuilt against the correct purchase-order change before submission.
OutcomeThe two builds differed by about $3,700. The corrected one was submitted.
Log 04 · intake check
The engineer's email carried a work order number one digit short; somewhere upstream, a digit had been dropped. Flagged at intake and confirmed with the sender.
OutcomeCorrected before anything was built on it.
Measurement period and limits
Figures on this page are as of August 2026 and describe one land-services firm under one utility MSA. Weekly volume is the firm's typical week, not an average over the whole period. Log entries are real cases with identifying details removed and dollar figures rounded. References from this client are available on a call, with the client's permission, arranged case by case.
The pilot sets up your desk on your client's template and rate sheet, then your first live document comes back free for you to judge.
Read the complete sample scope · Ask for references on a call