AI System for Comparing Service Requests with Contract Scope

The problem

When service requests, equipment records, contracts and SLAs are held in different sources, their fields must be matched manually before a scope clause and exception draft can be prepared.

The service contract lead must compare every suggestion in the scope clause and exception draft with the source record; missing or conflicting evidence must not replace the final decision.

If an urgent safety situation or supplementary protocol is not referred for separate review, out-of-scope work may be committed to; the record must not proceed without a human decision.

What we set out to improve

• Time taken for the scope clause and exception draft to reach the service contract lead for review with its supporting evidence
• Outcomes of records referred for human review because an urgent safety situation or supplementary protocol exists
• Number of suggestions corrected after identifying the risk of committing to out-of-scope work

How the system works

1. 01 Retrieve the service request, equipment record, contract and SLA from authorised sources using the record identifier
2. 02 Link source, date and version details to the shared work record
3. 03 Validate fields and units
4. 04 Prepare the scope clause and exception draft with its supporting evidence
5. 05 Check for the exception: an urgent safety situation or supplementary protocol exists
6. 06 The service contract lead accepts, amends or rejects the draft
7. 07 Write the approved decision and its source to the audit log

Methods we used

• A source-referenced shared data schema for the service request, equipment record, contract and SLA
• A decision structure that separates deterministic rules from AI suggestions
• A review screen showing the scope clause and exception draft alongside the underlying evidence
• A mandatory human review queue when an urgent safety situation or supplementary protocol exists
• An event identifier that prevents duplicate processing

Where people stay involved

Data and security

Only the fields required for this decision should be processed from the service request, equipment record, contract and SLA. Access to source systems should be authorised separately from the service contract lead role; personal, commercial and technical secrets should not be passed into the model context unnecessarily. Reads, suggestions and human decisions should be logged separately.

Who this suits

Frequently asked questions