Keep the evidence separate from the estimate.

An estimating workflow depends on more than a generated description of the job. Source material, historical references and the estimator’s decisions all have different roles. A draft should make those roles visible instead of treating every statement as an observed fact.

The POC includes document uploads and partial analysis of historical business documents. That reference analysis was incomplete. It should not be described as a fully processed or validated knowledge base.

The implemented workflow supports proposed historical rate candidates, explicit approval, editable estimates, saved calculation snapshots and document export. The owner’s approved rules remain distinct from suggested interpretations of source material.

This separation allows a reviewer to ask where a value came from and which assumptions changed. It also prevents a generated description from silently becoming authority over the commercial calculation.

A synthetic transcript and generated reference images were used to exercise the workflow. Reviewed calculation and export were demonstrated with those inputs. Synthetic material can help test a flow, but it cannot establish how extraction behaves on real project footage.

At the latest substantive update, real walkthrough footage was still pending and untested. The local POC is not a deployed customer success story, and no estimating-accuracy or time-saving result has been established.

Further work needs authorized real inputs and an estimator’s review of what was extracted, omitted or misunderstood. The draft must make it possible to distinguish supported facts from assumptions that still need confirmation.

• Test representative real footage before claiming video-based extraction works.
• Review proposed scope and exclusions against the actual source material.
• Confirm which historical references are usable and which need correction.
• Assess revision effort and calculation behavior before considering operational use.