Comprehends every document
Prose, tables, diagrams, scans — the meaning, not just the text. A value on a drawing lands in context, not as a floating number.
TrueLumen reads your drawings, specs, studies, and contracts as one body of work — then surfaces every place they disagree, with a one-click citation behind each one. Your engineers keep the judgment.
Inverter count on the medium-voltage single-line is 14. The signed contract specifies 16.
Both sources grounded · surfaced day 1 of a 10-day review
The problem
The disagreement is silent.
A gigawatt-scale project lives in hundreds of drawings, datasheets, specifications, and submittals that are all contractually obligated to agree. They often don't — and nobody notices. Two documents quietly contradict each other, and the cost compounds: a change order, weeks of field rework, and at worst a safety failure once the plant is energized. A single missed decimal nearly triggered a near-million-dollar order for equipment that was never needed.
The mistake is cheap to fix on the page and ruinous to fix in the field. Today the only thing standing between a buried mismatch and the field is the reviewing engineer — reading hundreds of pages one at a time, cross-checking by hand, catching what they can inside a ten-day window. It's slow work that leaves no record and can't be verified, and it gets harder every year as the volume of review races ahead of a shrinking pool of senior engineers.
What it does
Prose, tables, diagrams, scans — the meaning, not just the text. A value on a drawing lands in context, not as a floating number.
What agrees, what conflicts, what supersedes. Every check is held to the version of record — the signed contract, the governing code cycle — never just the latest file in the folder.
Each flag carries a one-click citation to the source that governs it. Open it, check it, defend it in the room. Nothing is asserted that can't be traced.
Why teams trust it
In high-consequence work, an answer you can't check is worthless. Four commitments hold on every review.
TrueLumen points out that two numbers disagree. It never overrules your engineer or declares a rule broken. Judgment and liability stay exactly where they belong.
Low-volume, high-value comments — never a 275-item laundry list. Below our precision floor, we don't show it. A tool that cries wolf doesn't get invited back.
Read-only on top of the systems you already run — Procore, Box, SharePoint, Bluebeam. Nothing moves, nothing migrates, nothing to rip out.
Every review states what was checked, what wasn't, and against which sources — so the gaps are visible instead of assumed.
Where it fits
It hands back the artifact your team already exchanges.
| Drawing | Pg | Comment | Reference | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-201 | 4 | Inverter count reads 14; contract specifies 16. | Exh. B-1.1 § 3.2 | High |
| E-114 | 2 | Conductor size below ampacity study result for this run. | Ampacity calc, tbl 3 | High |
| E-308 | 7 | Ground-grid resistance target conflicts with the grounding study. | Grounding study § 5 | Medium |
| E-102 | 1 | Sheet naming departs from the agreed convention. | Exh. B-5 | Low |
Who it's for
Wherever right and wrong are objective, and being wrong is expensive.
We're co-built with engineering teams reviewing gigawatt-scale energy projects — the sharpest version of the problem, where a hidden discrepancy becomes costly rework or a delay no one can afford. From there the path is a single axis: the higher the consequence, the higher the value.
We'll run a review against your ground truth and show you what we find — every flag cited, so you can check our work before you believe a word of it. For engineering leaders evaluating the product, and for investors, the same door.
hello@truelumen.ai