TECHNOLOGY / METHOD
Adapted to the Task. Designed for the Workflow.
A task-led method, from capture and interpretation to human review and workflow handoff.
THE WORK, IN MOTION
Keep the image connected to the work.
Four steps from an input to information someone can use.
APPLICATION CONCEPT — NOT A LIVE FEED
Capture
Start with a defined object, view and working condition.
Start with a defined object, view and working condition.Locate the visual question and preserve its source.Make uncertainty and the responsible reviewer visible.Give the next person the object reference, evidence and decision context.An illustrated sequence. Decisions and equipment actions require their own review.
A visual task needs an operational definition
Start with a working decision: which part needs review, which surface needs another view, or which result needs checking. Connect the image to its object, operating conditions and responsible person. A pilot tests whether that connection is useful before wider integration.
Define the task and its boundaries
Define the object, visible condition and possible reviewer action. Separate observation from cause: a surface change may need other evidence to explain it. Record acceptable, uncertain and out-of-scope examples, and name the final decision owner.
- Task brief: object, question, operating context and accountable reviewer.
- Review criteria: relevant conditions, exclusions and escalation rules.
Make capture repeatable
Assess position, distance, lighting, movement, reflections and obstruction. Choose fixed or mobile capture to suit access. Specify the required views, object or location links, and conditions that make an image unsuitable for review.
- Capture guide with required views, object identifiers and retake conditions.
- Representative examples covering normal variation and difficult conditions.
Adapt interpretation to the environment
Match the method to the task: recognition, region selection, positioning or before-and-after comparison. Evaluate against agreed examples and return uncertain inputs for review. An overlay alone does not establish measurement quality or site suitability.
- Evaluation notes including misses, false alerts and unusable captures.
- Documented interpretation limits and the conditions needing more evidence.
Review, version and hand off the result
Keep source images, object context and review records connected. Show version changes and why notes were accepted, amended or rejected. Define the handoff as a quality record, maintenance task or interface specification; equipment access and authority to act require separate agreement.
- Evidence record: source, object or location, observation, version and review outcome.
- Handoff definition: receiving role, required fields and unresolved items.
Agree what a pilot must demonstrate
A pilot should test whether reviewers can identify the correct item and use the evidence consistently. Agree samples, success criteria, review effort and failure conditions first. Deliver enough evidence to continue, revise or stop. Website concepts are not pilot results.
- Proposed deliverables: task brief, capture guide, evaluation record and sample reviewed output.
- Acceptance discussion: observed limitations, remaining integration work and next decision.
Questions before a project
Do we need a new camera or robot?
Not automatically. Start by describing the equipment and images already available. Capture suitability and access requirements should be assessed before any hardware change is proposed.
Can this website analyse our images?
The public website runs illustrative interactions only. It does not upload images, run visual inference or connect to equipment. Use a non-confidential task summary to begin a project discussion.
What if a result is uncertain?
The proposed workflow should preserve that uncertainty. The reviewer may request another view, add context or leave the item unresolved; the task definition determines the appropriate next step.
How is readiness established?
Through evidence from the agreed task and operating conditions, including failures and review effort. A concept, a prototype, a controlled test and a site evaluation answer different questions and should be identified separately.