- Added Step 7: Learning (feedback loop from Business Impact to Intelligence) - Control Intelligence definition: LandveX produces Control Intelligence, not AI - Three target customer cases defined: 1. Municipality — Inspect or wait? (Maintenance prioritization) 2. Property Owner — Repair now or plan later? (Cost vs risk) 3. Contractor/Operations — Which action first? (Operational planning) - Validation requirements: Run each case through full pipeline, document breaks, revise only after data contradicts model - Communication principle: Observation → Analysis → Recommendation (AI is implementation, recommendation is product) Rationale: Stop modeling, start observing. Model changes when data contradicts it, not before. Three real customer cases before freezing.
7.7 KiB
DECISION PIPELINE v1.0
Transformation Chain from Reality to Decision
| Version | 1.0 |
| Status | DRAFT |
| Scope | All Landvex data flows, from collection to decision |
The Pipeline
Reality
↓
Observation
↓
Evidence
↓
Finding
↓
Decision
↓
Action
↓
Business Impact
Step 1: Observation
| Input | Photo, video, GPS, timestamp, sensor data |
| Transformation | AI detects objects, classifies, measures |
| Output | Observation (typed, located, timed) |
| Owner | Detection Engine |
Example:
Input: Mobile photo of road + GPS coordinates
Transformation: AI identifies crack, measures 15cm width
Output: Observation {type: "crack", size: "15cm", location: [lat, lng]}
Step 2: Evidence
| Input | Observations, history, GIS, weather, traffic |
| Transformation | Correlation, deduplication, context enrichment |
| Output | Evidence Bundle (linked observations with context) |
| Owner | Evidence Engine |
Example:
Input: 3 crack observations + road age + traffic volume
Transformation: Correlate by location, check against historical data
Output: Evidence {observations: [obs1, obs2, obs3], trend: "increasing", confidence: 0.91}
Step 3: Finding
| Input | Evidence Bundle |
| Transformation | Rules, thresholds, AI reasoning, pattern matching |
| Output | Finding (pattern, conclusion, severity) |
| Owner | Analysis Engine |
Example:
Input: Evidence Bundle (3 cracks, trend increasing)
Transformation: Compare against degradation models, calculate severity score
Output: Finding {description: "Road degraded 15%", severity: "high", confidence: 0.87}
Step 4: Decision
| Input | Finding + business rules + priorities + constraints |
| Transformation | Recommendation generation, priority scoring, action mapping |
| Output | Decision (recommended action, urgency, rationale) |
| Owner | Decision Engine |
Example:
Input: Finding (road degraded 15%) + maintenance schedule + budget constraints
Transformation: Generate recommendation, calculate urgency, map to action
Output: Decision {action: "inspect", urgency: "14 days", rationale: "Safety risk"}
Step 5: Action
| Input | Decision + user confirmation + resources |
| Transformation | Task creation, scheduling, assignment, tracking |
| Output | Action (scheduled, assigned, tracked) |
| Owner | Action Engine |
Example:
Input: Decision (inspect in 14 days) + user approval + inspector availability
Transformation: Create work order, schedule inspection, assign team
Output: Action {task_id: "WO-2026-001", scheduled: "2026-07-16", assigned: "Team A"}
Step 6: Business Impact
| Input | Action completion + before/after measurements + costs |
| Transformation | Impact calculation, ROI analysis, risk reduction quantification |
| Output | Business Impact (measurable effect) |
| Owner | Impact Engine |
Example:
Input: Inspection completed + new measurements + actual costs
Transformation: Compare before/after, calculate risk reduction, quantify savings
Output: Business Impact {risk_reduced: "12% → 3%", cost_avoided: "$50,000", time_saved: "2 weeks"}
Step 7: Learning
| Input | Business Impact + original Decision Object + actual outcomes |
| Transformation | Compare prediction vs reality, adjust models and rules |
| Output | Improved models, updated thresholds, better recommendations |
| Owner | Learning Engine |
Example:
Input: Business Impact + original Decision {confidence: 0.87, action: "inspect"}
Transformation: Was recommendation followed? Did it produce desired effect? Was confidence correct?
Output: Learning {model_adjustment: "increase crack threshold by 5%", confidence_calibration: "0.87 → 0.92"}
Learning questions:
- Was the recommendation executed?
- Did it produce the desired effect?
- Was the confidence correct?
- Was the recommendation too aggressive or too cautious?
- Do rules or models need adjustment?
Control Intelligence
LandveX produces Control Intelligence, not AI analysis.
Control Intelligence consists of:
- Observations
- Evidence
- Findings
- Recommendations
- Business Impact
- Learning
Not: "AI analyzes the video" But: "LandveX produces a recommendation to inspect Road A12 within 14 days"
AI is implementation. Control Intelligence is the product.
Architecture Layers
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Presentation Layer │
│ Dashboard, API, Reports │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Decision Layer │
│ Recommendations, Priorities │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Intelligence Layer │
│ Findings, Analysis │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Knowledge Layer │
│ Observations, Evidence, History │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Reality Layer │
│ Collection, Sensors, Mobile │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
| Layer | Components | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Reality | quiXzoom app, drones, sensors, cameras | Collect raw data |
| Knowledge | Detection Engine, Evidence Engine | Structure and enrich |
| Intelligence | Analysis Engine | Find patterns |
| Decision | Decision Engine | Generate recommendations |
| Presentation | Dashboard, API, Reports | Show decisions |
Plus Learning Loop: Business Impact feeds back to Intelligence Layer to improve future recommendations.
Communication Principle
Not:
Video → AI → Score
But:
Observation → Analysis → Recommendation
AI is implementation. Recommendation is the product.
Target Customer Cases
Three customer types to validate the pipeline:
| Customer Type | Decision | Why Important |
|---|---|---|
| Municipality | "Inspect or wait?" | Maintenance and prioritization |
| Property Owner | "Repair now or plan later?" | Cost vs risk |
| Contractor/Operations | "Which action first?" | Operational planning |
Goal: Same Decision Pipeline works for three different customer types, not just three technical scenarios.
Validation Requirements
Before freezing Decision Pipeline v1.0:
- Three real customer cases — municipalities, property owners, or contractors follow the full chain
- Run each case through entire Decision Pipeline — from observation to business impact to learning
- Document where pipeline breaks — not where you think it might break
- Revise only after — model changes when data contradicts model, not before
- Empirical validation — same Decision Object works for real data
- End-to-end test — from observation to business impact
ändringshistoria
| Version | Datum | Beskrivning |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-07-02 | Initial decision pipeline with 6 steps, 5 layers, validation requirements |
STATUS
DRAFT — Awaiting empirical validation with real customer cases