Fast screening
Scores · reasons · cited pages
Pursue · review · rejectHow Orion works
From project documents to a qualified, inspectable action.
Orion separates a 3-minute fast-screening lane from comprehensive analysis. Selected-or directly submitted-project sets then move through a five-phase workflow for scoping, multimodal analysis, verification, and source-backed reporting.
ONE CONNECTED RECORD
- 01Project sourcesPlans · specs · addenda
- 02Approved contextProducts · rules · accuracy
- 03Evidence analysisNeeds · scale · calculations
- 04Qualified actionReport · approval · handoff
Workflow map
Screen when you need prioritization; analyze when you need the full record.
The workflow branches at Project Hub. Screening is an optional low-cost lane; comprehensive analysis can begin directly or after a document is promoted. Both paths converge on a source-linked report and explicit human approval.
APPROVED INTAKEProject PDFs and tenant context
PROJECT HUBChoose the review path
Full analysis
Multimodal ingestion · typed stages
Needs · evidence · measurementsFULL ANALYSIS ENTRYPromote screened sets · or start directly
REVIEW RECORDQualified Opportunity Report
HUMAN APPROVALExport · inquiry · handoff · revision
Functional architecture
A project-centered evidence pipeline-not a black-box answer.
Approved project sources and customer intelligence produce page artifacts, retrieved evidence, typed needs, measurements, calculations, and a governed report. The technical reference explains each stage and its failure behavior.
Plans Specifications Addenda Schedules
OrionConnected project review
Qualified opportunityEvidence · uncertainty · next action
Tenant-customized intelligence
Configure Orion around your catalog, engineering methods, and operating rules.
Orion is not a generic document chatbot. The tenant environment provides the proprietary products, engineering boundaries, discovery strategy, estimating rigor, permissions, and handoff rules used by the workflow.
Product and application knowledge
Proprietary SKUs, approved products, application guidance, technical data sheets, competitor matrices, and approved-equal context define the portfolio Orion evaluates.
Engineering and takeoff rules
Structural, hydraulic, soil, material, scale, waste, overlap, conversion, QA, and discipline-specific skill modules define how technical evidence is interpreted.
Opportunity strategy
Direct specifications, competitors, alternate language, commercial signals, design conditions, exclusions, and scoring thresholds define what deserves attention.
Ways of working
BALLPARK, TAKEOFF, or QUOTE_READY rigor, named reviewers, role permissions, report expectations, approval gates, and integration destinations connect output to accountable people.
Customization increases relevance; review states preserve authority. Orion applies customer-approved context and accuracy profiles, while the interface keeps source, confidence, assumptions, and required approvals visible.
Five connected phases
Narrow the question without losing the source.
Each phase has a system responsibility, a retained artifact, and a human responsibility. Open the detail within every phase to see the handoff.
- 01Scope
Define the evidence, rules, and authority before analysis.
Select project documents, product catalogs, engineering references, application rules, competitors, qualification thresholds, estimating profile, and responsible reviewers.
Construction documents use varied terminology and distribute requirements across drawings, specifications, schedules, and addenda. Orion begins by defining which record is authoritative and which customer context it may apply.
- Orion retains
- Registers project/document scope, tenant knowledge, workflow mode, configured queries, enabled skills, and acceptance criteria.
- People decide
- Approve the source set, product context, accuracy profile, exclusion rules, and decision ownership.
- 02Screen
Prioritize candidates before committing deep-review capacity.
Run a 3-minute opportunity screen across 500+ page project sets to calculate Technical Fit, Pursuit Readiness, Evidence Confidence, and a pursue/review/reject recommendation.
The screening lane checks configured product and application terms, incumbents, commercial/design/quantity signals, exclusions, text coverage, and optional semantic page matches without running the full generative analysis path.
- Orion retains
- Stores component scores, detected signals, reasons, strongest evidence pages, candidate products, and verification requirements.
- People decide
- Inspect why the document was scored and decide whether to promote it into full analysis.
- 03Analyze
Convert the promoted project into an evidence-linked technical record.
Process text and page visuals, retrieve project/product/engineering evidence per need, assess scale and measurements, and run typed specialist analyses before BOM reconciliation.
Full ingestion creates page-level text, image, PDF, visual-summary, component, and provenance artifacts. Project Analysis V2 then resolves a stable evidence snapshot and fans targeted work through specialist roles.
- Orion retains
- Produces typed needs, source-linked engineering/product analyses, measurement audits, quantities, confidence values, warnings, and candidate material rows.
- People decide
- Review configured engineering assumptions, product mappings, quantity rigor, conflicts, and missing source information.
- 04Verify
Inspect the finding, calculation, and physical source together.
Open cited drawings and specifications beside each finding, review highlighted regions, and inspect scale, formula, assumptions, cross-checks, methodology, and verification status.
The report distinguishes pursuit confidence from product and quantity confidence. Missing dimensions, contradictory sources, weak matches, and unresolved decisions remain visible rather than being smoothed into one answer.
- Orion retains
- Packages source locators, evidence regions, calculation trace, methodology, validation log, warnings, UNKNOWN values, and targeted follow-up questions.
- People decide
- Resolve design meaning, equivalency, compliance, estimate approval, and any conflict the record cannot decide autonomously.
- 05Act
Move a governed dossier into the next commercial or technical step.
Deliver the Qualified Opportunity Report, engineer verification packet, structured BOM outputs, technical inquiries, and approved API, webhook, MCP, JSON, CSV, or PDF handoffs.
The core report exists before optional actions and drill-downs are generated. Recommendations remain selective, can be empty, and route back into review rather than silently executing an external action.
- Orion retains
- Preserves report sections, sources, warnings, actions, drill-downs, version lineage, exports, and approved integration payloads.
- People decide
- Approve edits, the final takeoff or quote path, outreach, submission, export destination, and downstream system action.
Inside full analysis
Seven live stages make progress and responsibility visible.
The application reports these stages as analysis runs. Each stage produces a different class of inspectable evidence for the report and the reviewer.
| Stage | System responsibility | Record created |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Resolve project and document scope; build stable citation context. | Project snapshot, source manifest, coverage, enabled skills |
| Scale & measurement | Assess documented quantities, scale evidence, geometry, and input gaps. | Measurement audits, calculations, assumptions, confidence, questions |
| Evidence collection | Retrieve project, product, and engineering evidence for each need. | Need-linked evidence groups and source citations |
| Engineering analysis | Apply engineering rules, calculations, and enabled domain methods. | Typed engineering analysis and calculated quantities |
| BOM reconciliation | Match product recommendations to authorized needs and evidence. | Candidate products, need IDs, quantities, rationale, confidence |
| Report assembly | Build modular report sections and client-visible methodology. | Qualified Opportunity Report, sources, warnings, appendix |
| Review & follow-up | Select evidence-backed actions, drill-downs, and optional QA supplements. | Actions, open questions, evidence review, final version |
- 01Scope
- 02Scale & measurement
- 03Evidence collection
- 04Engineering analysis
- 05BOM reconciliation
- 06Report assembly
- 07Review & follow-up
Anatomy of a finding
Confidence is useful. Evidence is essential.
A reviewable finding carries the source, applied context, calculation basis, uncertainty, and responsible action together so another person can inspect, challenge, and advance it.
Source locator
Document, revision, page, sheet, section, table, detail, or highlighted region.
Finding
The requirement, condition, commercial signal, or quantity supported by that source.
Applied context
Approved product, application, engineering, estimating, and qualification rules.
Calculation basis
Scale, geometry, formula, inputs, units, allowances, cross-checks, and confidence.
Uncertainty
Conflict, limitation, partial coverage, missing evidence, or UNKNOWN value.
Human action
Responsible role, question, approval, and next commercial or technical step.
Review-state dictionary
A non-answer is a valid product state.
Buyers should know exactly how Orion labels work that is incomplete, estimated, conflicted, or awaiting a person. Those states are part of the workflow contract-not edge-case UI.
Queued / processing
The document or analysis has been admitted and work is not complete.
Screened
The lightweight lane produced a score, reasons, signals, and cited pages.
Evidence connected
The finding has an addressable source path.
Verified
The configured verification requirements for that record were satisfied.
Estimated / ballpark
A bounded method produced a preliminary value with lower rigor.
Needs review
A conflict, assumption, weak support, or decision remains unresolved.
UNKNOWN / needs input
The approved record cannot support the requested value.
Partial ingestion / warning
Core work completed with missing or stubbed page coverage.
Failed
The document or analysis could not complete its required path.
Methodology logIllustrative recorded updates
Building the evidence map
Project, product, and engineering sources are being retrieved and connected to typed needs.
Testing quantity support
Scale candidates, dimensions, formulas, conflicts, and missing inputs are being recorded.
Prioritizing material questions
Weak evidence and decisions that can change the report are being routed for follow-up.
Preparing the governed handoff
The dossier, approval state, owner, and selected integration or export path are being assembled.
Five transparency records
See what happened, why it matters, and what changed.
Methodology, calculation, evidence, version, and approval records answer different audit questions. Keeping them separate prevents a generic ‘audit trail’ label from hiding the actual detail.
Methodology record
What the staged workflow didStages, methods, validations, measurements, assumptions, concise working summaries
Calculation trace
How a quantity was derivedSource, scale, geometry, formula, named inputs, units, allowances, confidence, conflicts
Evidence ledger
Which source regions support a findingDocument, revision, page, sheet/section/detail, region, category, evidence ID
Report history
How a report changed over timeVersion number, parent/restored version, source message, timestamp, change summary
Approval record
Who remains responsible for actionRole, open question, review state, export/submission decision, downstream handoff
Evaluation and implementation
Test the whole evidence chain with the people who own the outcome.
A credible evaluation measures more than response quality. It verifies intake, page coverage, retrieval, calculations, citations, states, security, exports, and human approvals against a representative project.
- 01
Source set
Select representative plans, specs, addenda, schedules, and edge cases.
- 02
Configuration
Load products, engineering rules, opportunity signals, exclusions, and accuracy profile.
- 03
Evidence test
Inspect ingestion coverage, retrieval, citations, calculations, conflicts, and report states.
- 04
Operating test
Validate roles, security controls, approvals, exports, integrations, and acceptance criteria.
Evaluation inputs
- Representative approved project documents
- Product catalogs and engineering references
- Qualification criteria and exclusions
- BALLPARK, TAKEOFF, or QUOTE_READY target
- Commercial, estimating, and technical reviewers
- Data-handling and integration requirements
- Output and acceptance criteria
Workflow FAQ
Questions about branching, evidence, accuracy, and approval.
The workflow is designed to make the path from source to action understandable at each state-not only after a polished report appears.
Does every project go through screening first?
No. Direct intake can enter full analysis when the user already knows the project deserves it. Screening is the optional prioritization branch for larger candidate queues; relevant documents are promoted into the separate full-ingestion and analysis lifecycle.
What happens when the sources disagree?
The conflicting records remain addressable with their document/page context. Scale and quantity disagreement can cap confidence and generate a review flag. Orion can organize the conflict and draft a targeted clarification; the responsible reviewer resolves its technical or commercial effect.
How does Orion handle drawing-heavy or low-text pages?
Full ingestion renders every processed page, builds native page/image representations, and applies structured visual analysis. Valid component bounding boxes can create localized crops. If a visual pass fails, available text and raw page assets can remain as a marked stub; partial coverage is recorded.
What makes QUOTE_READY different from TAKEOFF?
QUOTE_READY is the strictest configured accuracy profile: per-opportunity verification, full BOM reconciliation, and rigorous engineering review. TAKEOFF runs broader independent scale and geometry analysis but may still surface unresolved questions. BALLPARK is optimized for rapid qualification.
Does Orion automatically send or submit its output?
No external write occurs without authorized review and approval. Orion can prepare API, webhook, MCP, JSON, CSV, PDF, takeoff, BOM, or inquiry artifacts for approved integrations, but the final submission or downstream write remains governed.
What should an evaluation include?
Representative documents, product and engineering context, qualification and exclusion rules, target accuracy profile, responsible reviewers, data/security requirements, required outputs, and explicit acceptance criteria for citations, quantities, reports, and handoffs.
See Orion in context
See the Orion workflow against a project your team already understands.
Bring the source set, product context, estimating target, review roles, and outputs you want to validate.