Nuclear Corrective Action Desk

What this shows

The problem

Findings arrive from an internal audit, a customer surveillance and a supplier audit. Somebody has to classify each one the same way every time, tie it to the clause it answers to, start the clocks, write a request that a department can actually answer, and notice the thing no single finding says: that two of them have the same mechanism underneath.

The result

The run at the top of this page is real and is recorded. Twelve finding records classified, every date computed from the procedure and labelled projected where nothing has been issued, and the findings reconciled on the provenance of the records they stand on, with every line carrying the reference it came from. What the cards say is produced by the tool layer. What the model writes above them is its commentary and carries none of those guarantees.

What is simulated, and what is not covered

The supplier, the twelve findings, the four registers, the department response and the four site documents are invented. Three documents are not: 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, the NRC Inspection Manual definitions of root cause, extent of condition and extent of cause, and 10 CFR 21.21 are quoted verbatim with their source, and a script in the repository re-glues every one of those quotations against the text in force on every run, because a promise of accuracy kept by somebody remembering to check is not kept. CSA N299.2-16 is copyrighted and no line of it appears anywhere here: the clause number each element answers to is read out of a public audit checklist that a Canadian operator publishes for its own suppliers, the number is named without the text, and no passage of that checklist is reproduced either. There is no SharePoint connection, no Power BI dataset, no Copilot and no Power Platform app: what the page shows is the structured output such a list would receive. Which customer order covers an activity is an assumption the file records and never a determination it makes. Performing the audit, inspecting an item, determining significance, determining a cause, dispositioning anything, notifying a customer and verifying closure are all outside this desk, and so is any question of whether 10 CFR part 21 reaches anybody.

What a pilot would need from your side

Your blank corrective action request form, your corrective action and audit procedures in whatever form they exist today, the column headings of whatever holds your CAR log rather than its contents, a short conversation with whoever runs that log and one person who can say whether a classification is right, and counts rather than findings: how many arrive from each source, how many are reclassified after the first read. Suppliers, findings and departments stay invented until your legal and security leads have agreed, in writing, which fields a pilot may see, who holds them, where they sit, how long they are kept and how they are deleted. No finding record is needed to start, and removing names is not anonymisation.

Who built it

Frederic de Lavenne de Choulot, The AI Pipe. Built as a demonstration, not sold as a quality or regulatory product, and not affiliated with IS International Services.