Derive each building's inspection cycle from the rule that binds it, check the seal that filing requires, carry the last report's conditions forward, and hold the pack for the owner who files.
A building joins the record with the physical-condition regimes that reach it, not its energy or emissions filings.
02
A jurisdiction is named on it, because the rule binding a New York City tower does not bind a Florida one.
Reason
03
A cycle opens, and the window is derived from the block or district the rule keys it to, with the derivation shown.
04
A professional is named, and the approval that filing requires is checked against them before the engagement.
05
A condition is reported, and the items from the last report are carried forward with their correction status.
Decide
06
A deferred item carries its ratchet: in New York City an uncorrected SWARMP is classified unsafe next cycle.
07
A filing pack is assembled and routed to the named owner representative, who is the one who files it.
Out
08
A record is retained — the rule source, the derivation, the seal, the conditions and the approval.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the record and runs the filing clocks; a differently-licensed professional seals the report, and the owner files it and carries the penalty.
Example workflow
One building, rule to filing pack
AgentHuman
1Building enters the recordProperty record, block and district, prior sealed reports and permits
2Regimes matchedBlock and district, prior reports, permits and the seal each filing requires
3Cycle derivedFiling window, next due date, seal required and confidence
4Controls appliedDerivation checks, qualification checks, carried-forward conditions and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is filed at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the owner representative's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the owner representative to approve.
Low confidence
Adds a qualified-professional read first.
Owner approval
The record is held with its rule sources, its carried-forward conditions and the confidence.
Approve · Correct · Send to professional review
Approved — released to the owner▼
6Building systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedDerivation accuracy, corrections, on-time filings and post-filing clock outcomes
Corrections
Every owner correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Submitting any filing to a building department.
Sealing, signing or certifying an inspection report.
Classifying a condition as unsafe, SWARMP or safe.
Deciding a building is unsafe for occupancy.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Derive the cycle and the next due date for each jurisdiction.
✓Check the named professional against what that filing requires.
✓Carry conditions forward with the consequence if uncorrected.
✓Assemble the filing pack and hold it for the owner representative.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the owner.
Performing or witnessing the physical examination.
Commissioning or engaging the sealing professional.
Requesting or accepting a deadline extension.
Changes to cycle, qualification or filing rules.
Example output
One carried-forward condition, annotated
Everything the agent derives is attached to the rule it came from.
Filing-record output · single buildingIllustrative example
Building
Carried-forward condition
Next examination
Rule of record
Confidence
Seal required
New York City tower
SWARMP item from the last cycle with no permit against it
21 Feb 2027
1 RCNY §103-04
93%
DOB-approved QEWI
As receivedTaken from the last filed report and the block record — nothing on this side is judged by the agent.
A portfolio-wide on-time filing rate can look healthy while a few jurisdictions carry most of the late and returned filings. Nestack reports the late-filing rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Buildings acquired mid-cycle
9.5%
3.7×
Review
Low-rise stock with parapets
7.3%
2.8×
Review
Florida milestone buildings
4.4%
1.7×
Watch
Single-city facade cycles
1.8%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: late-filing-rate lift vs. single-city facade baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The loop ends in the regression suite
A cycle closes when the lapsed filing is a regression case. That suite is what the next cycle assembled is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Late-filing rate rises in one jurisdiction.
02Diagnose
The facade condition first written down five years ago is read back against the permits until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
The change ships numbered, and the buildings that forced it ride with it.
04Verify
Nothing releases while one touched filing case is still red.
05Learn
It is kept for good, and the cycle rules are amended in the same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next detection runs 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, filing workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Portfolio and jurisdiction discovery workshops.
02Property and permit source assessment.
03Cycle, seal-qualification and filing-rule mapping.
04Property-record ingestion and mapping.
05Cycle derivation and rule binding.
06Confidence scoring and exception routing.
07Owner approval workflow.
08Building-system and portal integration.
09Cycle and qualification cases.
10Guardrails and filing controls.
11Filing-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 city, one portfolioProductionProduction building systemsAdvancedMultiple cities / regimes
Introduced at Pilot
Derivation to your rule set✓✓✓
Owner approval✓✓✓
Cycle-coverage baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by jurisdiction—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Building-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-city and multi-regime rules——✓
Multi-stage owner approvals——✓
Large portfolios——✓
Multi-city filing controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, 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 building list and the jurisdictions they sit in→Property-record ingestion and rule bindingWeek 1
02The last sealed report for each building→Cycle-derivation baseline and the carried-forward condition registerWeek 2
03Your professional roster and the approvals they hold→Cycle, qualification and filing-rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Property, portal and permit assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Filings you would not want re-opened→Cycle cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no sealed report may leave out→Confidence scoring, exception routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named owner representatives to review records→Owner approval 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 band is sized by the weeks its phase genuinely absorbs, which is why the fifth carries two.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Portfolio and jurisdiction discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the cycle-derivation baselineW3Filing workflow, confidence logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, qualification checks and failure-mode testingW5Portal integration, pilot buildings and targeted correctionsW6One filing cycle run under the owner representative, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Validation closes on live buildings, and Agent Care picks up the watch.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Real Estate AI agent
Build an inspection-filing agent around the jurisdictions you own in.
Show us the buildings, the jurisdictions they sit in and who seals each report. If a filing has already gone in late, the penalty is running against the owner now, and the notice can arrive long after — so that is where we start.
