Turn maintenance history, engineering records, and operating context into source-linked FMEAs and review-ready links to PHA, HAZOP, and MOC workflows. Reduce repeat loss while Reliability, Operations, Engineering, and Process Safety retain approval.
Rank systems by recurrence, downtime, production consequence, and repair burden. Every priority exposes its source records, data limitations, and assumptions—so leadership can fund the right intervention.
Generate functions, failure modes, effects, causes, controls, ratings, and maintenance implications from approved plant evidence. Engineers challenge a cited draft instead of starting with a blank worksheet.
Relate recurring failures and ineffective controls to relevant approved scenarios. Potential impacts are flagged for specialist reassessment; PHA and HAZOP owners decide whether analysis or safeguards must change.
Compare proposed changes in material, duty, operating envelope, configuration, or controls with existing equipment-risk content. Affected items are surfaced for review; your MOC team controls scope, studies, and approval.
Propose approved content for comparable assets while chemistry, duty, safeguards, configuration, environment, and operating practice remain explicit. Each receiving site reviews applicability before acceptance.
Run in your VPC or on-premise with a dedicated database, encryption, MFA, role-based access, and a full audit trail. Controlled integrations keep proposals separate from approved plant records until release.
Choose a repeat event or critical system and baseline current analysis effort, recurrence, downtime, or production impact. Use a controlled set of records your specialists already trust.
Receive repeat-failure patterns, an equipment FMEA draft, potential process-risk links, and a complete review record. Measure coverage, corrections, acceptance, and engineering hours against the baseline.
Give Plant, Operations, Reliability, Maintenance, Engineering, and Process Safety a shared view of repeat risk without blurring technical authority or approval rights.
Compare maintenance history with engineering and process-safety evidence. Surface missing failure modes, ineffective controls, and maintenance gaps for controlled review.
Build a source-linked equipment-risk draft from design documents, OEM information, operating envelopes, and process-risk outputs. Technical and Process Safety owners determine acceptance.
Structure evidence using the methods and taxonomies your site selects. Tacit AI accelerates preparation, traceability, and review; qualified personnel retain responsibility for applicability, analysis, approval, and compliance.
Start inside your existing governance. Your team defines the decision, evidence boundary, baseline, reviewers, output status, and expansion criteria before analysis begins.
Customer-defined
Select one critical system or repeat event, a measurable business baseline, approved sources, exclusions, and named Reliability and Process Safety reviewers.
Deliverable
Approved scope, baseline, evidence inventory, intended use, and review criteria.
Bounded pilot
Tacit AI prepares repeat-failure patterns, cited FMEA content, and potential impact links. Named specialists accept, revise, or reject each proposal.
Decision
Compare coverage, traceability, corrections, acceptance, and review hours with the baseline.
After validation
Move accepted content through site controls. Add units or sites only after reviewing chemistry, duty, safeguards, configuration, operating practice, and regulatory differences.
Decision
Expand only when measured value and governance satisfy the named business and technical owners.
Bring one repeat event, the current FMEA, representative maintenance records, and any relevant approved PHA, HAZOP, or MOC references.
