In plain terms: Here is the whole life of one decision, start to finish.
Suppose a superintendent is planning an availability six months out. The last
survey recorded thickness readings in a ballast tank that look thinner than the
reconstructed shell plating suggests they should be. Does that section need steel
renewal?
Why this example
This is the shape of most repair-planning decisions. It is not one clean lookup. It requires reconciling a measurement against a model, working out which rule governs, knowing how confident to be in each input, and getting a human to own the answer. Getting it right six months early is worth a great deal. Getting it wrong means either unnecessary steel work or a finding at survey.The walkthrough
1
Trigger
The superintendent opens the affected tank in the model and asks Forge for a
renewal assessment against the applicable Class requirement.
2
The system gathers what it needs
Forge pulls together the reconstructed shell plating in that region and the
drawing sheets that established it, the thickness measurement records from the
most recent survey, the repair history for that area, the governing Class rule
at its current version, and any prior decisions recorded for the same
structure.
3
It reconciles the records against each other
The measured readings are compared against the modeled plating. Where they
disagree, the disagreement is recorded as a located conflict tied to specific
components. Neither record silently overwrites the other. A reading taken last
year and a drawing from decades ago are both real, and the difference between
them is the finding.
4
It drafts a proposal
The AI drafts an assessment: which rule applies and at which version, which
measurements support the diminution claim, which components are affected, and
what prior decisions on this structure it is relying on.
5
Confidence check
If it cannot support the assessment, it stops and asks rather than
producing a number. Perhaps the readings do not cover the frames in question,
perhaps the plating in that region is one of the reconstruction’s open
questions rather than established geometry, perhaps two drawing sheets
disagree about the original scantling. Each of those is reported as the
specific thing that needs resolving. This is working as
intended.
6
The verification ladder runs, automatic checks first
The proposal then passes through an ordered set of checks. Fast, automatic checks
establish the evidence first; human and external review enter where required.
in action:
7
Decision signed
Once the responsible engineer approves, with Class review included where
required, T7 records the decision with an , preserving the
full reasoning and evidence behind it. The renewal scope goes into the work
package with its justification attached, so the yard receives the reasoning and
not only the instruction.
8
Outcome observed
Months later the vessel is in dock and the steel is exposed. The actual
condition is recorded against the decision. Did the assessment hold? Was the
renewal scope right, too large, or too small? Did the surveyor agree? That
outcome is captured as evidence, and it also updates the model for the next
cycle.