Assemble pressure, asset, and customer-impact evidence for operator-owned water-network response.
Explore in the architecture studioIllustrative reference architecture. Validate requirements for your organization.
Illustrative architecture: A water utility receives low-pressure alarms and customer reports across several neighborhoods. Operators need to reconcile telemetry, planned works, pipe topology, and field observations before dispatching crews or changing network configuration. Agents prepare situational evidence without operating pumps, valves, or public-health decisions.
Customer reports may be duplicated or geocoded incorrectly, while telemetry can fail during the same incident. Inferring a pipe break from a pressure pattern alone can misdirect crews. Network topology and isolation boundaries require engineering validation.
Telemetry, asset-graph, field-work, and customer-impact specialists investigate different evidence channels. The workflow keeps confirmed observations separate from modeled exposure and routes consequential decisions to established utility roles.
The intended result is a reviewable operational decision with source evidence and explicit ownership. Assess evidence quality and coordination time alongside field response. Service restoration and public-health outcomes require accountable operational decisions; the agent contribution is an inspectable, current picture of what is known and what still needs verification.
Compare pressure and flow observations with sensor health and planned operating changes.
Cannot set pump targets or change alarm thresholds.
Trace candidate pipe segments and connected service areas using governed network data.
Cannot authorize isolation boundaries or assume map accuracy.
Locate active work orders, crew availability, and verified field reports.
Cannot dispatch unsafe work or bypass site access procedures.
Group reports and draft factual service updates from approved incident status.
Cannot issue health guidance or publish notices without authorized review.
Exports observations without providing a write path to control equipment.
Provide pipe topology, valves, maintenance history, and map revision metadata.
Own crew assignments, approved public statements, and report follow-up responsibilities.
flowchart LR
N0["Water network incident coordination"]
N1["Telemetry investigator"]
N2["Asset dependency agent"]
N3["Field coordination agent"]
N4["Customer impact agent"]
N5["Evidence ledger"]
N6["Human decision"]
N7["Authorized adapter"]
N0 --> N1
N0 --> N2
N2 --> N3
N1 --> N4
N3 --> N4
N4 --> N5
N5 --> N6
N6 --> N7sequenceDiagram
participant O as "Case orchestrator"
participant S as "Operational telemetry gateway"
participant H as "Accountable reviewer"
O->>S: Read pressure and asset context
O->>H: Present possible affected segments
H-->>O: Request field verification
S-->>O: Field topology contradicts map
O->>H: Suspend map-dependent response proposalDeduplicate customer cases and alarms by location and time while retaining individual evidence and uncertain addresses.
Compare sensor health, neighboring observations, and recent operational changes before accepting a pressure pattern.
Trace affected segments using current asset data and label modeled impact separately from confirmed service disruption.
Retrieve active works and verified crew observations; surface conflicts between map records and physical findings.
Show inspection priorities, uncertain isolation assumptions, and a draft customer update for the appropriate operational owner.
Record approved dispatch and communication receipts, then reconcile field findings and telemetry before closing the incident.
Detect: Sensor diagnostics and neighboring measurements disagree with the isolated reading.
Recover: Exclude the suspect signal from confirmed evidence and request field validation without suppressing the incident.
Detect: Verified field report conflicts with the asset revision used in the plan.
Recover: Suspend map-dependent recommendations and route topology correction to engineering before further isolation planning.
Measurement definitions, not promised improvements.
Time from incident registration to operator-reviewable evidence and proposed next checks.
Audited reports assigned to the correct service area divided by audited geocoded reports.
Plans requiring revision after verified field findings divided by plans reviewed in the field.
Published updates matching approved incident state divided by sampled published updates.
| Decision | Benefit | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-source correlation | Reduces reliance on any single failed sensor. | Requires careful uncertainty labels and location reconciliation. |
| Read-only control boundary | Keeps operational safety functions independent. | Agents cannot directly shorten physical response execution. |
| Map-driven exposure analysis | Helps prioritize investigation and communication. | Outdated topology can create misleading impact estimates. |
Operators validate location matching, sensor failures, and map contradictions against completed incidents.
One service district reviews evidence packets and checks customer-data minimization.
Dispatch drafts and notices enter existing workflows after stale-map and contradictory-field-report drills succeed.