Attribute each occupancy figure to the method that produced it, mark every zone as measured or unmeasured before a total is formed, and hold the study for the workplace director.
2Zone context assembledThe zone, the method that measured it, the period it covers and the coverage it may claim
3Coverage statement draftedThe zone, its readings, its unmeasured areas and completeness
4Controls appliedCoverage checks, method-consistency checks, period checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is published at any of them — the agent is measuring, and the workplace lane opens at the completeness gate.
5DecisionSplits at the completeness gate
Coverage sufficient
Goes to the workplace director to publish.
Anything thin
Adds a workplace analyst read first.
Workplace review
The study is held with its coverage, its methods and the zones they were taken from.
Publish · Append readings · Send to workplace review
Published — by the workplace director▼
6Portfolio and zone records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedCoverage accuracy, method fidelity, reviewer corrections and what the read found
Corrections
Each workplace correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Recommending that a floor be released.
Deciding which team a zone belongs to.
Publishing a figure without its period.
Reporting attendance at the person.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Mark every zone as measured or unmeasured before any.
✓Carry the method that produced a reading alongside the reading.
✓Fix the window and the season a study covers before it is opened.
✓Show which zones carried no sensor and were therefore.
Nothing is published or decided except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a wing is genuinely surplus.
Telling the board the estate is under-used.
Setting the target a zone is measured against.
Changes to leases, allocations or headcount.
Example output
One zone, annotated
Our meeting room agent releases the booking nobody used; this record is what one zone measured across one study window.
Study record · single zoneIllustrative example
Zone
Recorded as
Method
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
North wing, level three
Measured in part, coverage stated
Desk sensor
Study window, autumn 2026
Held unpublished
The workplace director, by name
As receivedTaken from the desk sensor feed and the audit sheet — it reaches as far as those sources do.
What the record holdsDesk sensor feedManual audit sheetUnmeasured zone list
Why no decision hereReleasing a floor is an estate judgement made by a person, not a model output.
ActionPublishAppend readingsSend to workplace review
What the score decidesA study under the configured threshold picks up an analyst read before the director sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every zoneFrom the floor that reports it
03Evidence
Where the evidence is used
A utilisation study is not a workplace strategy: this page measures what the estate carried and states its coverage, and it claims nothing about why a zone was used as it was.
01Approved path
A desk is not a person
Coverage is settled before utilisation is reported, so a zone with no sensor on it goes out marked unmeasured and never as empty.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No measurement standard was purchased or read, no vendor sensor-accuracy claim was accepted, no benchmark from an industry survey was carried onto this page, and what the agent may hold about an individual is governed by your own configured policy on personal data.
04Build an evidence trail
The zone, the count observed in it and the manager who read it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Access and badge sourcesBadge readers · turnstiles Entry and exit events
Sensors and building systemsDesk sensors · counters Zone occupancy readings
Network and room panelsWi-Fi controller · panels Association and room logs
Agent
Space utilisation measurement
Reads the zones States the coverage Holds for the director
Portfolio and audit systemsIWMS · audit sheets Floor plans and zone maps
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six grates between the model and the director
Six grates laid over each other, the last most closely woven. What drops through is in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to measurement and coverage when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt and coverage rules; a redrawn zone map or a moved sensor changes what an old figure meant.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord each zone, the method behind it, the period it covers and every read of the study.Record
L3Director releaseHold the study for the workplace director; that hold governs publication, not what the estate ought to do next.Gate
L2Method guardrailsTest each zone against the method configured for it; badge, sensor, network and panel readings are never pooled into one number.Restrict
L1Coverage thresholdsRoute a study whose measured share falls short to an analyst read before the director sees it.Require review
Model coreMeasurement assembled — the zone, the method, the period and its coverage
L1 – L2Test whether a study may stand
L3Puts the publication in a person's hands
L4 – L5Keep the zone and the count behind it
L6Narrows to aggregate reporting when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the utilisation figure that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the study a board reads
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDid the figure carry the coverage it was built on?
E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right zone, the right method and the live floor plan?
E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct zone record and the correct study?
E4Confidence calibrationDo thinly covered zones actually attract more workplace corrections?
E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific building types?
E6Business outcomeHow many studies needed a correction before the director published?
Floor — the estate the board answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each held at the stage where it becomes visible.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval1 mode
KN-03
Stale floor plan read
The zone map read is not the one now in use.
Stage gathersThe zones, the methods, the dates and the maps
02 · Reasoning2 modes
KN-04
Utilisation asserted, not covered
A total is formed over a zone nobody measured.
KN-06
Methods mixed across zones
Badge and sensor readings are pooled as one.
Stage proposesThe zones, their methods and coverage
03 · Tool / write2 modes
KN-02
Thin study passed forward
A study moves on without the analyst read.
KN-05
Bound to the wrong zone
A reading is filed against the wrong floor.
Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output1 mode
KN-01
Published, coverage unstated
A figure lands on the record without the areas it never covered.
Stage returnsThe study a director publishes and a board reads
05 · Change / Version1 mode
KN-07
Silent coverage regression
A sensor estate changes, and the denominator does not.
Stage tracksModel, prompt, coverage rules and study fields
Sev-1 · an unmeasured wing counted emptySev-2 · methods pooled into one figureSev-3 · source degrades, study held back
A zone-level coverage figure can read clean while sensor-sparse legacy wings carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by zone type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Sensor-sparse legacy wings
8.4%
3.6×
Review
Mixed-method floors
6.0%
2.6×
Review
Meeting-room clusters
3.7%
1.6×
Watch
Fully instrumented floors
1.9%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. fully instrumented floor baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an unmeasured wing costs
The loop shuts when the sensor blind spot is a regression case. That suite is what the next study published is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on sensor-sparse legacy wings.
02Diagnose
The wing with no sensors that read as empty in every board pack is worked back until one cause remains.
03Improve
Any change goes out numbered, with the zones that caused it attached.
04Verify
One zone case still failing is enough to hold the release back.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the measurement record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next study is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, measurement assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Coverage-baseline and automation-boundary work.
02Badge, sensor and floor-plan sources.
03Zone-to-method and coverage-completeness mapping.
04Zone and sensor reading ingestion.
05Zone, method and period binding.
06Coverage scoring and review routing.
07Director publication workflow.
08Workplace-system integration.
09Coverage and aggregation cases.
10Guardrails and publication controls.
11Zone-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne building, one studyProductionProduction measurement workflowAdvancedMultiple buildings / regions
Introduced at Pilot
Measurement to your zone map✓✓✓
Workplace director release✓✓✓
Sensor-coverage baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by zone—✓✓
Publication workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Badge-and-sensor integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-building estates——✓
Cross-period study packs——✓
Large sensor estates——✓
Multi-floor aggregation controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, estate size, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your buildings and the zone map behind each one→Zone mapping and reading captureWeek 1
02Representative badge, sensor and audit readings→Reading binding, method logic and the coverage baselineWeek 2
03Your configured policy on personal data→Method mapping, period binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Badge, sensor and floor-plan source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Studies you would not want questioned→Coverage cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no occupancy figure may prove→Coverage scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named workplace director to publish→Publication workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each bar is sized to the weeks that phase really costs, and the fifth of them therefore doubles up.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Workplace discovery, zone mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the sensor-coverage baselineW3Measurement assembly, method logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, coverage cases and failure-mode testingW5Floor-plan integration, pilot zones and targeted correctionsW6One occupancy study run under the workplace director, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandNo band is padded out; each spans the weeks its own work is named for, and week five holds a pair.
At the end of W6Once the occupancy record validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Facilities AI agent
Build a utilisation agent around the wing your board pack has never actually measured.
Bring us one wing and the readings behind it. Send a floor plan and a single measured week as the next step, and we will return the study with its coverage stated and every unmeasured area named. Whether a floor is released stays with your workplace director.
