How it works
Six stages, one loop, a record that compounds.
Your firm already knows how it reads an ambiguous clause and which trade-offs it accepts. The loop puts that reading to work on every package, and keeps it current as the project moves.
Six stages. The output of each one is the input of the next
The package arrives
Read as it is, in any format
02It meets your record
Your requirements, not generic codes
03Agents review it
Every finding traced to its source
04Findings come back answered
Verdict, alert or visualise
05A person decides
Signature rests on visible evidence
06The decision joins the record
Next revision runs as a delta
The record
Everything the loop settles is kept here, and handed to the next pass.
The package arrives
Read as it is, in any format
02It meets your record
Your requirements, not generic codes
03Agents review it
Every finding traced to its source
04Findings come back answered
Verdict, alert or visualise
05A person decides
Signature rests on visible evidence
06The decision joins the record
Next revision runs as a delta
Stage 01
The package arrives.
Read as it is, in any format.
A submission turns up the way it was made: an IFC export, a native Revit model, DXF sheets, a PDF drawing set, a spreadsheet of room data, a scanned specification. Nothing is re-modelled and nothing is cleaned up first.
Tektome reads the package in place. Geometry, properties, sheets and text are indexed together, so a requirement written in a document can be answered against a wall in the model without anyone rebuilding either one.
- No pre-processing step, and no modelling convention to adopt first
- Drawings, models and documents are indexed as one package
- What arrives is preserved: the original file stays the reference
Read as-is
The package is indexed, not converted. The file you submitted stays the file of record.
Stage 02
It meets your record.
Static rules, and the interpretation that keeps moving.
Codes, standards and checklists are published once and read the same by everyone. They matter, but they are not what separates one firm from another. What separates you is the interpretation: how your practice reads an ambiguous clause, which trade-off it accepts, what it decided on the last twelve schemes. That reading is your knowledge, and it is rarely written down anywhere a review tool can reach.
It also keeps moving. A brief is revised, a clause is re-interpreted, a client changes their mind, and the requirement that governed the work last month no longer does. Conventional systems hold the static half well and lose the dynamic half almost immediately. The loop measures the package against both, and keeps the moving half current.
- Static: published codes, standards and checklists, read as written
- Dynamic: your interpretation, your decisions and the commitments you have made
- When the dynamic half changes, the record changes with it
What the package is measured against
Static requirements
Published once. The same for everyone.
- Code clauses and approved documents
- Published standards
- Industry checklists
Dynamic requirements
Revised as the project moves. Yours alone.
- How your practice reads each clause
- Client brief, as revised
- Past decisions, with reasoning
- Trade-offs already accepted
- Contractual commitments
Anyone can hold the static half. The dynamic half is your knowledge, and keeping it current is the part conventional systems lose.
Stage 03
Agents review it.
Every finding traced to its source.
Specialist agents work the package in parallel, each with a narrow remit: dimensional, regulatory, spatial, documentary. Separate viewpoints on separate passes is the point: repeating one viewpoint finds the same things twice, while independent viewpoints find different things.
No finding is reported on its own authority. Each one carries where it came from (the element, the sheet, the clause, the earlier decision it contradicts), so it can be examined rather than believed.
- Independent passes, so blind spots do not line up
- Every finding carries its element, sheet and clause reference
- Nothing is reported that cannot be opened and inspected
Parallel passes
Dimensional
Corridor clear width reads 1,180 mm against a 1,200 mm minimum
Regulatory
Second stair travel distance exceeds the stated limit
Spatial
Duct run crosses a structural beam on the third floor
Documentary
Door schedule and model disagree on fourteen doors
Each row opens on the element it came from. A finding you cannot trace is not a finding.
Stage 04
Findings come back answered.
Verdict, alert or visualise.
A pass-or-fail mark answers one question and hides the rest. Where the evidence is decisive and the requirement is objective, the loop issues a verdict. Where it is not, it says so plainly instead of rounding up.
Three kinds of answer come back, and each is honest about how much certainty sits behind it: a verdict where the answer is settled, an alert where something needs a person's attention, and a presentation of the evidence where judgement is genuinely required.
- Verdict: objective, decisive, and cheap to settle
- Alert: likely a problem, surfaced early, decided by a person
- Visualise: no verdict issued; the evidence is laid out for judgement
Three kinds of answer
Verdict
Clear-width measurements against a stated minimum. The answer is settled, and reported as settled.
Alert
The stair core reads as non-compliant under one reading of the clause. Raised for a person, not decided.
Visualise
Daylight across the east elevation, laid out for comparison. Judgement stays with the designer.
Nothing is rounded up to a tick. What is not yet known is reported as not yet known.
Stage 05
A person decides.
Signature rests on visible evidence.
The loop does not sign anything. It narrows the field, does the work that can be done mechanically, and puts the remaining judgement in front of the person who is accountable for it, with the evidence already assembled.
That person's role moves upward rather than away. They are not re-running measurements; they are deciding the questions that needed a human in the first place, and their signature now rests on something visible.
- The accountable person decides, not the system
- Evidence is assembled before the decision, not after it
- The reasoning is recorded alongside the outcome
Decision: stair core, revision C
Accept the stair core as designed, or require a revision?
- Three of four independent passes cleared the core
- Travel distance is 1.2 m over on one reading of BR B1 §2.23
- The same clause was accepted on Scheme 41 with a sprinkler trade-off
- Fire engineer's note attached, dated 14 May
J. Whitfield
Design lead, accountable for this decision
The signature and the reasoning are stored together. Neither can be produced without the other.
Stage 06
The decision joins the record.
Next revision runs as a delta.
The decision does not close a ticket and disappear. It is written back to the record as a determination with its grounds attached: what was decided, on what evidence, by whom, and why.
When the next revision arrives, the loop already knows which requirements were settled and what settled them. Only what actually changed is reviewed again; the rest carries forward with its reasoning intact, so the same judgement is never paid for twice.
- Determinations are stored with their grounds, not as a bare mark
- Unchanged requirements carry forward, with no re-review and no re-litigation
- Each revision costs the delta, not the whole scheme
Review effort by revision: 340 requirements
Illustrative revision sequence. The record grows; the work per revision does not.
What each turn of the loop leaves behind
IllustrativeEvery pass runs the same six stages, from the package arriving back to here. Because each decision is written back with its grounds attached, the next pass opens on everything the last one settled. The loop does not restart at zero, and the base under each run keeps rising.
Why this compounds
The loop gets cheaper to run the longer you run it.
Each turn leaves determinations behind. A judgement that was expensive to settle the first time (a subjective requirement, a contested clause, a detail that needed the fire engineer) is settled once and then reused, with its reasoning attached, on every scheme that meets the same question again.
Effort per scheme as the record grows
IllustrativeIllustrative: the shape of the effect, not measured data. The rate depends on how much of your work repeats, and the curve flattens rather than reaching zero: genuinely new problems still cost what they cost.
Determinations are reused
A requirement settled once carries its grounds forward. The second scheme to ask the same question does not pay to answer it again.
Only the delta is reviewed
Revisions are measured against what the record already holds, so effort tracks what changed rather than the size of the model.
The record stays yours
What accumulates is your firm's own judgement, held in your instance. It is the part of this that a competitor cannot copy.
Next step
Interested to learn more?
A 30-minute session: a deeper look at the platform, and a conversation about the schemes and duties your firm is carrying. Nothing to set up, no project data needed.
- The loop running end to end, on a real scheme
- A walkthrough on a project we have prepared
- Live Q&A with our engineering team
Book a 30-minute demo
Step 3 of 3
Pick a time with Henry
Thirty minutes, and you will get a calendar invite straight away.
Your meeting is booked.
A calendar invite is on its way to your inbox.
Henry will bring a prepared sample project, so there is nothing for you to set up.
Need to change it? Reply to the invite and we will sort it out.