Frontline / Hosted demo
Maintenance reports from notes, photos and recordings
A technician’s notes mix symptoms, work performed and things to check next time. Frontline assembles a report from that material and lets the reviewer inspect the sources. It also retrieves applicable equipment guidance without treating the manual as evidence that a repair happened.
FastHTML · Groq · SQLite FTS5 / BM25
Example visit
The work order and the visit note disagree
The work order requests a power-supply replacement for an intermittently offline gateway. The technician returns with these records:
- Work order
- Replace the gateway power supply; inspect the intermittent outage.
- Voice note · 09:18
- Reseated the DC connector. The gateway came back and uploaded 216 queued readings. Brought a spare supply but did not install it.
- Follow-up note · 09:23
- Readings continued at the expected one-minute interval during the five-minute check. Verify the existing supply rating before choosing a replacement.
- Photo description
- The gateway is identified as a Raspberry Pi 4. The supply label is too worn to read its rating.
Intermittent gateway outage
Reseated the DC connector. The spare supply was not installed.
216 queued readings uploaded; reporting continued during a five-minute check.
Verify the supply rating. The photographed label is unreadable.
The work order requested a replacement; the visit note says it did not happen.
The report can describe the reconnection and the short observation period. It cannot conclude that the supply was replaced, that its rating is correct, or that the outage is permanently resolved.
Authored scenario and report excerpt, not output from a recorded application run.
How the report is assembled
Prepare the inputs
Audio and image interpretation become reviewable source material alongside written notes. The report saves the exact source snapshot used for that attempt, so later edits do not rewrite its history.
Select references
SQLite FTS5 and BM25 rank passages from a small equipment library. Model, revision and access filters run before selection. Reference guidance is stored separately from the technician’s observations and completed work.
Check the draft
The app checks required fields and source references. A separate review looks for interpretation errors: an action filed under the wrong section, an unsupported quantity, or a cited passage that does not support the sentence.
Keep the hosted demo usable
Uploads, requests and storage are bounded. Visitor workspaces are isolated, and saved work survives process restarts. The demo uses alwaysdata and Groq.
What the development evaluation found
Reviewing 20 authored cases found that reports sometimes described proposed work as completed work. Revised instructions raised assistant-reviewed passes from 12/20 to 18/20 on the same development cases. Two interpretation errors remained.
A separate retrieval study checked whether the selected passage applied to the equipment in the notes. The revised policy found a relevant top passage in 12/12 answerable cases and abstained in eight unsupported cases, but extra passages still introduced irrelevant material. These are small development studies with assistant judgments, not independently measured customer outcomes.