03 · Our Experience

Empirical production milestones

Results from head-to-head benchmarking with aerospace systems safety SMEs, measured against human baselines, on real production fault trees — never on toy examples. Every number below was produced inside a partner's own perimeter.

99.96%
Topological & detection accuracy

Node-level connection accuracy and object detection on held-out production pages never seen during development.

0+
Production systems in service

Fault trees from more than one hundred production systems that are still flying today, processed end to end.

100,000s
Pages processed & annotated

Hundreds of thousands of fault-tree pages ingested, structurally checked and annotated with SME-verified ground truth.

0+
Hours of training & fine-tuning

On NVIDIA AI clusters we operate on our own premises. Partner material is never used to train anything outside the partner's boundary.

Partnerships

Applying Ellie and Mia to real-world problems

We do not benchmark on synthetic trees. Our partners bring production safety archives, their own subject-matter experts and their own perimeters; we bring Ellie and Mia inside and measure.

Aerospace prime · production fault trees

Boeing

Ellie and Mia are applied to fault trees for production systems still in service. Boeing safety SMEs set the human baseline: each page Ellie reconstructs and each latent fault Mia surfaces is checked against what an experienced analyst produces, and the discrepancies are traced to their cause — a drawing convention, a detector miss, or a genuine finding the review had not reached.

  • Head-to-head benchmarks against SME baselines on real production trees
  • Vector-PDF and scanned drawings spanning decades of documentation conventions
  • Findings validated page by page, so accuracy is measured per node, not per document
Research partner · methods, annotation and evaluation

Gonzaga University

Gonzaga contributes the academic rigour: evaluation design, annotation protocols and independent measurement of what Ellie and Mia actually achieve. The held-out test sets, the per-node accuracy metric and the review-time studies that show where analyst minutes are really spent come out of this collaboration.

  • Independent evaluation design and held-out test sets never touched during development
  • Annotation protocols that make ground truth reproducible across annotators
  • Research into where review time goes — the metric that decides whether the tooling helps
The data

Real production fault trees, at scale

100+ production systems, still flying

The corpus is not a museum. It covers more than one hundred production systems currently in service, with the drawing conventions, transfer structures and revision histories that real archives accumulate over decades.

Hundreds of thousands of pages

Fault-tree pages processed end to end — detected, linked across pages, structurally checked — and annotated with SME-verified ground truth for gates, events, transfers and their connections.

Trees, not pages, as the unit

A tree is roughly twenty pages and is analysed as one Boolean structure. Accuracy is reported per node, because a tree with one hundred nodes and one misplaced connection is a wrong tree — and that is the standard we measure against.

How we measure

99.96% is a per-node number on held-out pages

Topological and object-detection accuracy

  • Object detection: every gate, event, transfer and connector symbol on a page, by class and position
  • Topology: every parent-child connection between them — the number that decides whether the tree is right
  • Measured on held-out production pages that were never inspected during development
  • Reported per node: 99.96% means fewer than one misplaced connection in two thousand
  • Every residual error is traced to a drawing convention and fed back into Ellie's parser rules

1,000+ hours of training and fine-tuning

  • Detector training and fine-tuning on NVIDIA AI clusters we operate on our own premises
  • Synthetic drawing pages generated from the real drawing grammar to cover rare gate types
  • Every candidate model is evaluated on the same held-out set before it replaces the previous one
  • Mia's engine is exact, not learned: cut sets come from a proven fault-tree solver and need no training
  • The language assistant is a local model constrained to the analysed trees — it never invents a fact
Security during the work

Every result above was produced without a single document leaving its owner

Partner archives are export-controlled and proprietary, so the evaluations follow the same three principles as the product. Un-sanitised fault trees are processed only inside the partner's perimeter, on hardware the partner administers, with the uplink severed. Material that reaches our own clusters for training arrives sanitised — probabilities, identifiers and descriptions stripped by the partner before it leaves their boundary — and our clusters are themselves on-premises and air-gapped from the internet.

Nothing in the pipeline calls an external service: no cloud OCR, no hosted language model, no telemetry. Access to partner material is granted per team, denied by default and fully audited. The numbers on this page are therefore also a statement about what can be achieved without compromising on sovereignty — which is the point.

IN PRACTICE
  • Un-sanitised trees never leave the partner's perimeter; analysis runs air-gapped on partner hardware
  • Training material arrives sanitised: probabilities, identifiers and descriptions stripped at source
  • Our NVIDIA clusters are on-premises and air-gapped; no third-party cloud holds any partner data
  • Team-scoped, deny-by-default access with a complete audit trail of every login, denial and download
  • Results exported in open formats (Open-PSA XML, CSV, JSON) and returned to the partner, who keeps them
THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND IT

Absolute air-gapping, total containment and data sovereignty govern the product and the way we work with partners alike. The evaluations on this page are the proof that the two are compatible with measured, production-grade results.

Read the three principles →

Benchmark CoreIngestion against your baseline

Run a controlled trial on your own archives.

Request a Pilot Blueprint