Weekly Sync #4 — Speaker Notes

Hi everyone, thanks for joining. This is our fourth bi-weekly sync. Today's meeting is a bit different — we're here to formally confirm the project kickoff, close out the open items from last time, and align on next steps.

Let's jump in.

First, a quick recap of last meeting's action items — all four are done.

Auston delivered the acceptance criteria template and shared it with stakeholders. On our side, we updated all four documents — RTM, ClickUp, Overview, and Roadmap — to reflect the log management move to Batch 2. And we completed the full acceptance criteria for all 34 Batch 1 requirements, both Layer 1 and Layer 2, posted to ClickUp.

Beyond that, we also resolved several items through email and ClickUp comments: the response time approach, PDF export deferral, low-confidence handling, and confirming ClickUp as our single source of truth.

On the development side, the Smart Diagnostic Agent is in tuning and optimization, frontend and backend are in integration testing, and we're preparing the UAT environment.

On June 27th I sent the kickoff confirmation email — "no objections by June 30 means formally approved." As of today, we have not received any objections.

Here's the roadmap we're confirming: four batches, 183 requirements total.

Batch 1: 34 requirements, AI Diagnostic Assistant read path, releasing July 20th.

Batch 2: 49 requirements — permissions, log management, and O&M extension — September 15th.

Batch 3: 42 requirements — alarm overhaul and data-driven decisions — November 3rd.

Batch 4: 58 requirements — device control, smart inspection, firmware governance, and platform foundation — December 28th.

Project closure is January 15, 2027.

Any objections? ... If not, the project is formally kicked off as of today.

Now let's go through the open items one by one. First — response time.

Josh agreed to our progressive output approach on June 27th. His exact words: "Partial results is a good starting point. The 10-second window should show SN, fault codes, and parameter readings. Perceived speed will be high if we prioritize raw data output and follow up with AI inference."

So our implementation is: within 10 seconds, show the device info, fault codes, and key parameters — that's the data layer. The AI diagnosis conclusion follows progressively as the inference completes. For simple cases, the full result comes within 10 seconds. For complex multi-fault cases, the data comes first, and the full conclusion follows within 60 seconds P95.

Ronnie — on June 25th you mentioned 10 seconds as the go-live gate and 3 seconds as the optimization target. Are you aligned with this progressive approach? The user sees meaningful data within 10 seconds, just the AI conclusion takes longer for complex cases.

Second item — how we handle low-confidence diagnoses.

Josh gave clear feedback: multi-turn dialogue to gather context exceeds Batch 1 scope. The system needs to be smart enough to know what it's lacking, and that's too complex for now.

So the agreed approach for Batch 1 is simple: low confidence triggers static escalation to T2/T3 with all the diagnostic data attached. We maintain the zero confident-wrong principle — the tool never gives a wrong answer with high confidence. Escalation records and feedback get linked back to the solution database, so repeated faults get diagnosed faster over time. Multi-turn context-gathering becomes a Batch 2-plus enhancement.

This is already reflected in our PRD V1.4. Any objections?

Third — PDF export and link sharing. Quick one.

Josh confirmed: "As long as there is a record that can be referenced, that's what matters for Batch 1."

So Batch 1 delivers structured report viewable online, copy to clipboard in Markdown, with diagnosis time and diagnostician recorded. PDF export and shareable link will ship in a later iteration. No further action needed.

Fourth — the starter fault list. This is the one item that still needs action.

Chris put together a working candidate list on June 22nd — roughly 15 to 20 fault codes covering communication issues, CT unclamped, battery voltage, high temp, inverter precharge, neutral open, software version incompatible, mains voltage anomalies, EPO, and wrong locale.

On our side, we've cross-referenced this against our diagnostic rule base — all codes are covered. We also confirm "device offline" is included.

Once this list is locked, the 90% accuracy bar becomes a hard go-live commitment. So — Darcy, have you had a chance to validate this against actual service frequency data? Can we lock this list today or this week?

Last open item — solution revision notifications. Josh asked that the US service team be included when solution effectiveness drops below threshold.

We agree. The updated flow: when effectiveness drops, notifications go to LMT/T3 as before, and now also to Josh, Chris, and Darcy. Both sides collaborate on improvements.

Any objections? ... Good, we'll implement this.

To wrap up — here's what's next.

Lock the starter fault list — Darcy validates, then the 90% bar commits.

Development planning continues against the agreed acceptance criteria, targeting July 20th for UAT release.

We continue the bi-weekly cadence.

And for next meeting, two things: first, we'll do a live demo of the Batch 1 Smart Diagnostics. Second, we'll start aligning on Batch 2 scope and acceptance criteria.

That's it for today. Thank you everyone. Any questions before we close?