Trust & responsible AI
The AI drafts.Your engineer decides.
GridAPM Ai is built for evidence, planning, and reporting workflows where explainability, operational boundaries, and engineering accountability matter. Every recommendation passes a human gate before it becomes an action.
- Human approval required
- No autonomous control
- Local-first pilot datasets
- Audit-ready decision records
OT boundary
Site network
Workstation
GridAPM
Controlled OpenAI connection
Evidence in
AgenticGrid Pro Transformer APM
The other GridAPM product ProtectionAI Relay testing
Principles
Trust is designed into the workflow
GridAPM Ai makes it easy to review what happened: which evidence was used, which assumptions mattered, and which person approved the next action.
-
Human approval
AI supports review work. Engineers decide — they approve, reject, or escalate every recommendation.
-
No autonomous control
GridAPM Ai serves evidence, planning, and reporting workflows — never autonomous transformer control.
-
Traceable evidence
Recommendations link back to source records, assumptions, uncertainty, and review state.
-
Controlled pilots
Evaluation begins with approved datasets and local-first workflows, with OpenAI access scoped before any broader integration.
-
Data minimization
Pilot scope uses only the evidence needed to evaluate the agreed workflow.
-
Reviewable AI
Agent activity is logged with rationale, inputs, outputs, and the human sign-off that closed it.
The human gate
No autonomous control — every action needs a named engineer
Stage 4 of the pipeline is mandatory. The screen below is the gate itself: approve, edit, reject, or escalate — each decision stamps the audit log.
- Intake
- Correlate & quality gate
- Agent reasoning
- Engineer sign-off
- Work package & report
AI draft — awaiting engineer review
Reviewer: M. Okafor, P.E. · Senior substation engineer
Re-sample oil in 30 days; keep the PD monitor trending on the HV-B bushing; thermographic follow-up on the B-phase LV connection; inspect and re-torque at the next planned outage.
Awaiting engineer decisionNothing ships without a named engineer's decision.
Approved — signed 2026-07-10 14:32 · M. Okafor, P.E. Draft accepted as written. Work package WP-2026-0141 issued to planning.
APPROVEDReturned with engineer edits Re-sample window tightened from 30 d to 14 d; draft sent back to the agent to regenerate the task list.
Draft rejected — rationale recorded Gas rise attributed to the June cooling-bank outage already logged for TX-47. No maintenance action; monitoring continues.
Escalated to asset strategy review TX-47 added to the Q3 fleet review board with the full evidence chain attached.
Audit log
- intake · 7 files received, 4 sources correlated
- quality gate · passed — 1 correction (IR clock drift)
- agent/dga-v2.3 · draft v2 created — confidence 0.78
- m.okafor · draft approved — WP-2026-0141 issued
- m.okafor · draft returned with edits — re-sample 30 d → 14 d
- m.okafor · draft rejected — cooling-bank outage cited
- m.okafor · escalated — Q3 fleet review board
Governance model
Who acts, who decides
Every pilot defines four zones before evaluation begins: what agents may do on their own, what they may only draft, what engineers alone decide, and what stays outside the software entirely.
Agent may act
Parsing, normalizing, and aligning approved evidence files; computing trends and quality flags.
Agent may draft
Condition assessments, risk rationale, report language — always labeled as an AI draft awaiting review.
Engineer decides Human gate
Every approval, edit, rejection, and escalation — nothing becomes an action without a named engineer.
Out of scope
Autonomous switching, protection settings, real-time operation, final operational authority — never in the software.
Audit trail
Every decision leaves a mark
The audit boundary is defined up front: the evidence pack, assumptions, reviewer identity, timestamps, and final decision state are preserved. Entries are append-only — edits add to the record, they never rewrite it.
- Evidence pack
- Source records, assumptions, and uncertainty notes stay attached to every finding.
- Reviewer identity
- Each decision names the engineer who made it, with their role and comments.
- Timestamps
- Every state change — draft, edit, approval, escalation — is dated in the log.
- Final decision state
- The approved, rejected, or escalated outcome closes the record and travels with the report.
Trust FAQ
Questions security and engineering teams ask
Does GridAPM Ai control transformer equipment?
No — by design. GridAPM Ai is human-reviewed decision support: it organizes evidence, drafts reasoning and recommendations, and produces reports. Engineers hold final authority over every action.
Can GridAPM be evaluated offline?
Yes. A pilot is scoped around approved datasets and local-first workflows. OpenAI access and deployment details are reviewed against your security and operational technology requirements.
How does GridAPM handle responsible AI?
Bounded agent tasks, visible evidence, uncertainty notes, human approval, audit trails, and conservative claims — the same principles on this page, applied in the product.
Meet the human gate
See the sign-off workflow on your own evidence — scoped, local-first, engineer-approved.