Pilot contact information
Business contact details submitted through pilot, demo, newsletter, or email workflows.
Data handling
Transformer evidence should stay reviewable from source to decision
GridAPM pilot workflows should preserve where evidence came from, what AI assisted with, who reviewed the output, and which recommendations remain draft.
Data categories
What a controlled pilot may involve
Pilot data handling should be agreed before technical evaluation begins. The exact scope depends on the transformer population, evidence quality, and review workflow.
Transformer evidence
Approved diagnostic records, inspection notes, loading context, maintenance history, reports, photos, or exports used in a scoped pilot.
Derived observations
Reviewed fields, summaries, draft findings, evidence links, and recommendations created from approved source material.
AI-assisted output
Draft explanations, extraction suggestions, missing-evidence prompts, and report language that require human review before use.
Operating principles
Data boundaries for human-reviewed agentic AI
GridAPM public positioning favors local-first operation and conservative claims. Customer evidence should remain inside approved project boundaries unless a deployment profile permits otherwise.
Use the minimum evidence needed for the agreed pilot workflow
Preserve source provenance, file identity, and reviewer context where practical
Treat AI output as draft material until accepted, edited, or rejected by a reviewer
Avoid sending confidential evidence to hosted services unless explicitly approved
Define retention, deletion, export, and follow-up expectations before pilot expansion
Separate pilot inquiry data from customer evidence used in technical evaluation