Use cases

Real findings from live project reviews. Every one traceable.

The URUS use case register — actual discrepancies the engine surfaced across live capital projects, anonymized for client confidentiality.

Equipment tags and document references have been substituted. Findings, values and engineering reasoning are unchanged from the live reviews.

  1. Undersized cable — ampacity shortfall quantified

    [ Single Line Diagram ↔ Cable Schedule ]

    Interpretation

    Cross-referenced the SLD rating against the Cable Schedule tabulation; identified an ampacity shortfall and quantified it.

    Why it matters

    Prevents electrical failures: fire, motor trip, downtime. Protects compressor availability on a critical production train.

    Report clarity

    Safety, reliability and operational risks of the undersized cable explained explicitly.

  2. 20% design margin contradicts the standard

    [ Basis of Design ↔ Governing Standard ]

    Interpretation

    Picked up the explicit “20% margin” mention in the basis of design table, and automatically compared it against the governing standard.

    Why it matters

    Safeguards CAPEX efficiency by avoiding unnecessary overspend, and ensures operational compliance from FEED stage onward.

    Report clarity

    Cost and operational implications of the oversizing explained in full.

  3. Pressure mismatch — 120 barg vs 131.3 barg

    [ Design Basis ↔ PFD ]

    Interpretation

    Interpreted tabulated operating data on the PFD and cross-checked it against the textual design basis; identified the mismatch.

    Why it matters

    Prevents costly overdesign of compression and piping systems; safeguards alignment between design basis, PFDs and downstream deliverables.

    Report clarity

    Issue presented with context, the gap quantified, and a clear actionable resolution given.

  4. Dimensional mismatch on equipment A-4010

    [ Detailed Layout Drawing ↔ Master Equipment List ]

    Interpretation

    Read a layout drawing with multiple annotations and symbols; correctly linked equipment tag A-4010 between the drawing and the MEL.

    Why it matters

    Catching the dimensional mismatch early prevents late-stage rework or clashes.

    Recommendation

    Verify with the vendor, then update the MEL and drawings. Flagged as a decision-ready recommendation.

  5. Mis-tagged equipment — V-30502 vs V-3050

    [ P&ID ↔ Equipment Datasheet ]

    Interpretation

    Understood equipment tagging rules across documents and detected an incorrect tag number on the datasheet.

    Why it matters

    Detecting the mis-tag early avoids confusion in equipment identification during design, procurement and operation.

Let’s prove it

Your documents have findings too. Let’s find them before construction does.

Full-access guided trial with white-glove onboarding on Day 1. No credit card. Data permanently deleted after the trial.

Book a demo
URUSAi Get started