Building energy fault localization service
Turn consumption anomalies into actionable professional investigation.
- For
- Facilities engineers
- Solves
- Meter anomalies do not reveal which approved subsystem to inspect.
- Delivers
- Engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief
- Built in
- about 4 weeks of creation time, MVP in 4 days
- Investment
- $25,000 for the MVP, $50,000 for the full product
- Run it
- Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients
What it does
Turn consumption anomalies into actionable professional investigation.
- Locate correlated deviations.
- Compare operating contexts.
- Prepare technician investigation priorities.
- Compare the reviewed result with the recorded baseline and value assumptions.
- Capture corrections and named-owner approval before consequential use.
- Export a versioned engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief with source references and unresolved questions.
What goes in, what comes out
- Authorized submeter data
- Engineer-provided asset topology
AI drafts, people review. Watchlist, change detection and briefing subscription.
- Engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief
How it works
The workflow
- InStart with
Authorized submeter data and engineer-provided asset topology
- 1
Confirm the buyer's problem and scope
- 2
Collect authorized submeter data and engineer-provided asset topology
- 3
Then follow this sequence: 1
- OutFinish with
Engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief
AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge
Use AI to interpret permitted inputs, suggest structured mappings and generate candidate outputs for the three stated task modules. Use deterministic code for arithmetic, schema validation, hard constraints and reproducible tests. Review source-linked explanations and uncertainty before accepting results. No automatic building controls or safety-critical diagnosis. A model suggestion is never a verified fact, professional decision or authorization to act.
What your team sees
Primary screens: Permitted sources and watchlist, Dated change evidence, Reviewed alert and action history. Use a watchlist with source health and last-checked dates, a chronological change feed, and a reviewable briefing editor. Display original evidence beside each alert. Let users mute irrelevant topics and record whether a change led to action. Make the task-specific outcome engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief visible beside its evidence, review state and value baseline.
Accounts and administration
Watchlist ownership, source health, dated evidence, deduplication, topic filters, editorial review, delivery preferences and alert feedback. Add organization access boundaries, named reviewers, usage caps, data retention controls, export logs and explicit approval for external actions.
Integrations and data access
Property records, construction documents, project photos and supplier quotes. Permitted feeds, published document sources, email digests and internal briefing channels. Verify collection rights and source reliability before selling coverage commitments. Start with authorized file exchange. Validate current provider access, usage rights and schema behavior before promising a connector.
How we build it
We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.
- 1
Scoping call
Day 1Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.
- 2
MVP
4 daysOne buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: locate correlated deviations; compare operating contexts. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.
- 3
Paid pilot
5 daysAccounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- 4
Full product
9 daysSelf-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
- 5
Run and improve
MonthlyWe host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.
Why we start with an MVP
An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.
- Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will facilities engineers use it to solve "meter anomalies do not reveal which approved subsystem to inspect"?
- Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
- Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost.
- Measure, then decide. Track verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.
MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: No automatic building controls or safety-critical diagnosis. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: locate correlated deviations; compare operating contexts. Support the third module with operator review: prepare technician investigation priorities. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.
After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief. Retain the explicit scope boundary: No automatic building controls or safety-critical diagnosis.
What the build depends on. Reliable permitted source access, change history, publication dates, deduplication and editorial QA. Coverage limits and inaccessible sources must be visible. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: No automatic building controls or safety-critical diagnosis.
Investment
A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.
- Phase 1
MVP
One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: locate correlated deviations; compare operating contexts. Manual review in the loop.
- Phase 2
Paid pilot
Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- Phase 3
Full product
Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
Indicative total, MVP to full product$50,000about 4 weeks of creation time · start with the MVP from $25,000
Running costs per month
A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.
| Stage | Hosting and infrastructure | AI usage | Total per month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilotabout 3 customers | $30–$60 | $50–$100 | $80–$160 |
| Full productabout 50 customers | $110–$210 | $350–$700 | $460–$910 |
Run it or resell it
For your own team
Facilities engineers run it inside the business: authorized submeter data and engineer-provided asset topology in, engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief out, reviewed by your people.
As part of your offer
Agencies, consultancies and software companies can offer it to their own clients under their brand. We build and maintain it; you sell and deliver it.
Your brand, or this one
Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.
- primary
#91277e - accent
#54c98b - surface
#f1e4ee - ink
#22201e
- Headings
- Libre Baskerville
- Text
- IBM Plex Sans
- Voice
- Solid, practical, on-schedule
Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook
Pricing to test
Test USD 100-500 monthly for a narrow shared briefing, or USD 750-2,500 monthly for bespoke analyst coverage. Licensed source access and unusual collection requirements are extra. Prices require validation. Package the initial sale as one bounded engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.
Message to test
Turn consumption anomalies into actionable professional investigation. Demonstrate a concrete engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.
Where to find buyers
Facilities engineers professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.
Lead magnet
A reviewed sample engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost and no promised savings.
The first 30 days
- Week 1: interview five facilities engineers and inspect a recent example of meter anomalies do not reveal which approved subsystem to inspect.
- Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the three task modules.
- Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
- Week 4: measure verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.
Paid pilot
Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.
Success metrics
Verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.
Retention and expansion
Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.
Why clients would pick it
A curated source network, historical change archive and buyer-specific relevance judgments within a narrow topic. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for facilities engineers. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.
Alternatives and positioning
Newsletters, search alerts, analysts and general media or website monitoring tools. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on verified metered savings minus investigation and repair cost. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.
Main delivery costs
Source licensing, collection reliability, change processing, analyst verification, missed-signal review and digest production. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, qualified domain review and bounded validation of engineer-reviewed energy fault investigation brief. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.
Safeguards
Verify property facts and scope assumptions. Clearly label visual alterations. Professional reviewers retain responsibility for contracts, engineering and legal interpretations. No automatic building controls or safety-critical diagnosis. Keep all consequential actions under authorized human control and do not fabricate missing inputs, permissions, professional judgments or market evidence.