Tacit AI prepares source-traceable equipment-risk proposals from maintenance, engineering, and operating evidence. Reliability, Operations, Engineering, and Process Safety owners review every conclusion before it informs maintenance, PHA, HAZOP, or MOC work.
Use work orders, notifications, downtime, manuals, and approved engineering records to propose recurring failure patterns and bad-actor priorities. Reviewers see the source, data limitations, and assumptions behind each proposal.
Tacit AI proposes FMEA content, ratings, and maintenance implications for engineering review. Accepted changes follow the site’s maintenance-strategy, document-control, and technical-authority processes.
Connect approved PHA or HAZOP scenarios to relevant equipment evidence and flag possible impacts for reassessment. Your PHA and HAZOP owners decide whether the evidence warrants further study or a controlled change.
Compare proposed changes in materials, duty, operating envelope, configuration, or controls with existing equipment-risk content. Tacit AI flags possible impacts; the customer’s MOC team determines scope, approvals, and required studies.
Approved analyses can be proposed for comparable assets while process chemistry, duty, safeguards, configuration, environment, and operating practice remain explicit. Each site reviews applicability before use.
Define asset, process, data, and integration boundaries before analysis begins. Controlled imports and exports keep proposals separate from PHA, HAZOP, MOC, and plant systems of record.
Use an agreed set of maintenance records, manuals, engineering documents, process context, and relevant approved PHA, HAZOP, or MOC references.
Report proposal coverage, source traceability, reviewer disposition, and review effort for the selected scope. Do not generalize the result to other units or sites without an applicability review.
For Plant Managers and Reliability, Operations, Engineering, Maintenance, and Process Safety leaders who need defensible equipment decisions from fragmented plant evidence.
Start with a recurring event or critical system. Compare maintenance history with approved engineering and process-safety evidence before proposing a maintenance or analysis change.
Use approved design documents, OEM information, operating envelopes, and process-risk outputs to prepare an equipment-risk draft. Technical and process-safety owners determine acceptance.
Applicability is site- and jurisdiction-specific. Tacit AI supports evidence preparation and review; the operator remains responsible for required analyses, programs, approvals, and compliance.
Your team defines the system, process context, authoritative evidence, baseline, named reviewers, output status, and criteria for any broader use.
Customer-defined
Choose one critical system or repeat event, the relevant operating context, approved sources, exclusions, and Reliability and Process Safety reviewers.
Deliverable
Approved scope, baseline, evidence inventory, intended use, and review rubric.
Agreed schedule
Tacit AI prepares potential failure patterns, FMEA content, and impact links. Named specialists accept, revise, or reject each proposal.
Decision
Proceed only if agreed traceability, relevance, and review-effort criteria are met.
After validation
Move accepted content through site controls. Add units or sites only after reviewing process, duty, safeguard, configuration, and regulatory differences.
Decision
Expand against customer-defined production, reliability, and governance outcomes.
Bring selected maintenance records, the current FMEA, and relevant approved PHA, HAZOP, or MOC references. We will define the evidence and technical review boundary together.
