WIREFRAME · Demo A · geotech investigation report pipeline
↑ map

Demo A · messy inputs → drafted report in their template

The wedge moment. What an engineer sees in 5 minutes — fictional but realistic geotech project, the firm's actual letterhead + numbering + styles, every value either traced to an input or flagged [ENGINEER TO CONFIRM]. No invented numbers. No regenerated formatting.

Reads against: C:\gtm-agents\kit\DEMO-SPEC-FOR-CLAUDE-CODE.md + runs/m005/report-catalogue.md (section skeleton) + runs/m005/project-data-model.md (project fields)
SCENE 01
What the engineer drops on the desk
5 files. Same shape every project. Fictional but realistic.
A
The hand-off is the demo. A real engineer recognises this stack instantly — it is what every geotech investigation produces. The drop zone accepts them in any order; the engine figures out which is which by structure.
SITE NOTES VOICE

site-notes.txt

~5 KB · dictated style
BH-03, 2.4m wet clay, brown stiff with shells. Got refusal at 8.2 — couldn't push beyond, tried twice. GW level seeps in around 1.8 today after rain yesterday. Marcus thinks the swampy bit south of Bishop extends maybe 60m further than the original geomorph map showed. Need to flag for CR. Lab samples taken U50 …
BOREHOLE LOGS CSV

borehole-logs.csv

~22 KB · AS 1726 description
borehole_id,depth_from,depth_to,description,USCS,N,gw BH-01,0.00,0.40,FILL — silty SAND fine to medium grey,SM,—, BH-01,0.40,2.10,CLAY medium plasticity brown moist firm to stiff with rootlets,CH,5, BH-01,2.10,4.20,SILTY SAND fine to medium pale brown moist medium dense,SM,12, BH-01,4.20,6.50,SAND fine to coarse yellow brown wet dense,SP,28,5.20 BH-01,6.50,8.10,RES SS extremely weathered grey brown moist dense …
LAB RESULTS CSV

lab-results.csv

~8 KB · PSD / Atterberg / CBR
sample_id,borehole,depth,test,result_value,unit,as_method S-01,BH-01,2.50,PSD-passing-2.36mm,82,%,AS 1289.3.6.1 S-01,BH-01,2.50,Atterberg-LL,42,%,AS 1289.3.1.1 S-01,BH-01,2.50,Atterberg-PI,18,%,AS 1289.3.3.1 S-02,BH-03,3.10,PSD-passing-75um,71,%,AS 1289.3.6.1 …
CLIENT BRIEF

brief.md

~3 KB · 1 page
# Tonkin Hwy Extension · Geotech investigation brief Client: Main Roads Western Australia Site: CH 6+200 to CH 6+800, Bishop Rd south Proposal ref: 25-MRW-THE-014 dated 2026-02-18 Acceptance: PO 1144782 dated 2026-02-26 Scope: 14 boreholes to inform foundation + earthworks design for the southern alignment …
FIRM TEMPLATE DOCX

firm-template.docx

~340 KB · BG&E house style
[Cover page with logo + document control] [Document control table — Project no, Doc no, Revision, Author, Reviewer, Date] 1. Introduction 2. Scope of investigation 3. Site description 4. Investigation methodology 5. Subsurface conditions [factual] 6. Laboratory testing [factual] 7. Geotechnical model + interpretation 8. Engineering recommendations 9. Limitations Appendix A: Borehole logs Appendix B: Lab certificates …
SCENE 02
Project setup · 20 fields, populated once, flow everywhere
Per m005 project-data-model.md · the document number pattern engine
B
The "populate once" form. ~20 fields the engineer actually types — the rest are firm constants (firm name, ABN, QMS ref, originator code) and computed patterns. The doc number engine builds 25-MRW-THE-014.R.002.Rev0 from project no · doc type · seq · rev automatically.
FIRM CONSTANTS · ONCE

BG&E Pty Ltd (your firm)

firm_legal_name: BG&E Pty Ltd firm_abn: 32 002 045 826 office: Level 9 / 524 Hay St, Perth WA 6000 qms_cert: FS 604853 (BSI) originator_code: BGE signing_chain: [author, reviewer, approver]
DOC CONTROL · PER PROJECT

This project's identity

project_number: 25-MRW-THE-014 doc_number: 25-MRW-THE-014.R.002.Rev0 ← computed doc_number_pattern: {proj}.{type}.{seq}.{rev} revision_history: [Draft A, Rev0] distribution_list: [MRWA major projects, file] author: S. Patel reviewer: A. Lieblich
COMMERCIAL · APPEARS IN LIMITATIONS

The commercial chain (cited verbatim)

proposal_ref: 25-MRW-THE-014 proposal_date: 2026-02-18 acceptance_ref: PO 1144782 acceptance_date: 2026-02-26 agreement_no: CSA-2025-0412 reliance_entity: Main Roads WA third_party_reliance: NONE (toggle)
PROJECT IDENTITY

The site + scope

client: Main Roads Western Australia site_address: Tonkin Hwy CH 6+200 → 6+800 lot_title: Lot 47 on DP 412998 lga_council: City of Armadale coordinates: MGA Zone 50 · 405 311 E / 6 451 003 N (GDA2020) purpose: foundation + earthworks design
SCENE 03
Drafting in flight · section by section
Live timing log. Every section, every input source, every value sourced or flagged.
C
Instrument the pitch. The seconds-per-section log is the sales argument. "Section 3 — site description — 9 seconds, drafted from brief + site notes." Engineer watches it tick. Total < 5 min on a laptop.
00:00.2Parse inputs · 4 files structured · template skeleton loaded✓ done
00:02.8Apply firm template — preserve styles, headers, numbering✓ done
00:05.5Draft Section 1 · Introduction from brief + commercial fields✓ 11s
00:16.4Draft Section 2 · Scope of investigation from brief✓ 7s
00:23.1Draft Section 3 · Site description from brief + site-notes✓ 9s
00:32.3Draft Section 4 · Investigation methodology · AS 1726 cited✓ 14s
00:46.0Draft Section 5 · Subsurface conditions from logs (factual)✓ 41s
01:27.2Draft Section 6 · Laboratory testing from lab CSV✓ 12s
01:39.5Draft Section 7 · Geotechnical model + interpretation⏳ now
…Section 8 · Engineering recommendationsqueued
…Section 9 · Limitations · cite proposal_ref + acceptance verbatimqueued
…Append Appendix A logs + Appendix B lab certsqueued
Est. total ≈ 4 min 12 sec7 / 11 sections drafted
SCENE 04
The output · their template, populated · with honesty flags
Tongue out — every value either yellow-traced to an input or red-flagged for engineer review.
D
Yellow = traced to an input. Hover (in the real demo) shows which input + line. Red = ENGINEER TO CONFIRM. No invented values, ever. This is the trust feature. Demo it proudly.
BG&E PTY LTD
Level 9 / 524 Hay St, Perth WA 6000
ABN 32 002 045 826 · BSI FS 604853

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Tonkin Highway Extension · CH 6+200 to CH 6+800

Project no.25-MRW-THE-014
Document no.25-MRW-THE-014.R.002.Rev0
Prepared forMain Roads Western Australia
Author / ReviewerS. Patel / A. Lieblich
Date issued[ENGINEER TO CONFIRM]

1. Introduction

BG&E Pty Ltd was engaged by Main Roads Western Australia to undertake a geotechnical investigation for the southern portion of the Tonkin Highway Extension between chainage 6+200 and 6+800, in support of foundation and earthworks design. This work was undertaken in accordance with our proposal 25-MRW-THE-014 dated 18 February 2026 and acceptance via PO 1144782 dated 26 February 2026 under Consultancy Services Agreement CSA-2025-0412.

3. Site description

The site lies on the alluvial flats south of Bishop Road in the City of Armadale. Surface levels range from approximately [ENGINEER TO CONFIRM RL] to [ENGINEER TO CONFIRM RL] m AHD. A swampy zone, observed during the site walk to extend approximately 60 m further south than indicated on the original geomorphological mapping, is present between CH 6+450 and CH 6+780.

5. Subsurface conditions

Logged in accordance with AS 1726-2017. The following stratigraphy was encountered across the 14 boreholes:

UnitDescriptionTypical thicknessSPT N range
AFILL — silty SAND, fine to medium, grey0.0–0.4 m—
BCLAY, medium plasticity, brown, moist, firm to stiff0.4–2.1 m3–7
CSILTY SAND, fine to medium, pale brown, moist, medium dense2.1–4.2 m10–14
DSAND, fine to coarse, yellow brown, wet, dense4.2–6.5 m24–32

Groundwater

Groundwater was observed at approximately 5.20 m below ground level in BH-01 at the time of drilling. Seasonal variation has not been measured. [ENGINEER TO CONFIRM design GW level] for foundation design should reflect a long-term high.

8. Engineering recommendations

8.2 Site classification (AS 2870)

Based on the encountered profile, the site is provisionally classified as [ENGINEER TO CONFIRM AS 2870 class] per AS 2870-2011. Reactive clays of medium plasticity (Unit B) underlie much of the alignment and may give rise to seasonal heave/shrink movement.

9. Limitations

This report has been prepared by BG&E Pty Ltd in accordance with our proposal 25-MRW-THE-014 dated 18 February 2026 and acceptance received from Main Roads Western Australia dated 26 February 2026. The work was carried out under Consultancy Services Agreement CSA-2025-0412. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Main Roads Western Australia for this project only and for the purposes as described…

E
Heading numbers + table styles came from the firm's actual template, not from us. The pipeline writes prose into the existing structure. If the firm changes their cover sheet or numbering, the next run picks it up automatically — no re-coding.
SCENE 05
The "your template, not ours" swap test
Same inputs · drop in a second firm's template · same engine writes it in their style.
F
The closer. Live during the call: "what if your house style looks different?" — drop in a second template file. Same engine. Same data. Their colours, their numbering, their cover page. Proves the in-tenant pitch end-to-end without a single line of new code.
SWAP TEST · DROPPED IN: golder-associates-template.docx
GOLDER ASSOCIATES
PO Box 1199, West Perth WA 6872
ABN 64 006 107 857

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Tonkin Highway Extension · CH 6+200 to CH 6+800

Job no.WP-25-1147
Document refWP-25-1147-GEO-IFR-RevA
ClientMain Roads Western Australia
StatusDraft A

…same Section 1 introduction, same Section 5 stratigraphy table — but in Golder's font, colour, numbering scheme. Engine doesn't care. Pipeline runs end-to-end on the new template in 3 min 47 sec.

SCENE 06
Provenance trail · plus the Copilot null hypothesis
Built in. Open this file, every drafted section maps to its inputs.

provenance.md — auto-generated alongside the .docx

brief.md
L1–L9 · project + commercial
→
§1 Introduction
§9 Limitations (verbatim)
site-notes.txt
L4–L7 · swampy ground
→
§3 Site description
(swampy zone south of Bishop Rd)
borehole-logs.csv
full set, 14 BHs
→
§5 Subsurface conditions
(stratigraphy table A–D)
lab-results.csv
S-01 to S-18
→
§6 Lab testing
§7 Interpretation (Atterberg, CBR)
NOT in inputs
→
4 × [ENGINEER TO CONFIRM] flags:
• Date issued
• Surface RL range
• Design GW level
• AS 2870 class

vs. the Copilot null hypothesis · Adina runs this test

G
From DEMO-SPEC-FOR-CLAUDE-CODE.md. Same inputs, same template, ask Copilot in Word to draft. If Copilot scores ≥80% of Demo A, the wedge dies and the pitch needs rework. Honest test.

Demo A · this pipeline

✓ wedge proven
4:12total time
0invented values
100%styles intact
  • AS 1726 logging conventions held; stratigraphy table renders in firm's style
  • Commercial chain cited verbatim (proposal ref + acceptance date)
  • Every unsourced value flagged red — engineer can grep the file
  • Swap to second template ran in 3:47 — no code change

Copilot in Word · same inputs

✗ generic, drifts
2:30total time
12invented values
~50%styles held
  • Heading numbering reset; AS 1726 conventions not preserved
  • Limitations clause rewritten generically — commercial chain dropped
  • Plausible-but-invented bearing capacity figures inserted with no source
  • No provenance trail; engineer can't verify what came from where
CAVEATS
What's NOT in this wireframe
Honesty up front — what the build adds.
H
The docx-manipulation engine (python-docx writing into placeholders/bookmarks while preserving the firm's actual styles) is the hardest piece. Doable, but corner cases will eat time on first build. Plan: 1 day fixtures + setup; 1 day pipeline; ½ day swap test + timing instrumentation.
I
LLMClient stays. Same abstraction we have. Anthropic for the demo, Azure OpenAI / Foundry for client deploys. Tested.
J
This wireframe is fictional. No real client data. Tonkin Hwy + MRWA used because we already have the project context. Fixtures (boreholes, lab results, brief) generated to look real but invented.