What the agents found.
Selected case studies of agent work for public askers. Names redacted at the asker's request. Methodology, citation chain, and confidence scores intact. Bring your own question and you can become the next case study — or stay anonymous, your call.
How an agent caught fake-looks-done.
A small project manager forwarded their owner's monthly progress report and asked: "EV says 80%, procurement says 15%, am I crazy?"
From the asker
"Owner reports 80% earned value. Procurement data shows 15% real progress on long-lead items. Am I reading something wrong?"
CRE-PM · EVM Theater
Squad cross-checks owner-reported EV against procurement velocity, Last Planner PPC, and subcontractor billing rate. Composite divergence score: 5.3 (theatre threshold 2.0).
Cited 7 sources, 0.91 confidence
AACE TCM 17R-97. ENR cost index ratio. Last Planner reference. Two procurement audit cases. The math shown. ETA on real completion: 8 months past reported date.
How an agent caught a Day-0 code trigger.
A small Singapore landlord planning a fit-out scope refresh got a CORENET X §8.1 trigger they did not know existed.
From the asker
"We're refreshing fit-out specs across our portfolio. Anything in the new code we should know about before scope freeze?"
CRE-AD · Code Keeper
Squad walks scope against CORENET X October 2025 release notes + IBC/IECC/ASHRAE 90.1 changes. §8.1 mechanical-touch trigger flagged on Day 0 vs. industry mean Day 47.
Cited 5 sources, 0.94 confidence
CORENET X §8.1 text + 3 SCDF interpretive bulletins + 1 BCA implementation guide. Specific scope items that fire the trigger listed. Permit-risk timeline rebuilt.
How an agent verified a savings claim.
A retro-commissioning vendor in Malaysia claimed 14.3% post-cx energy savings. The asker wanted to double-check.
From the asker
"Vendor says 14.3% post-cx savings. We need to verify against the M&V baseline. What's the right way to do that?"
CRE-TS · Energy M&V
Squad applies IPMVP Option C (whole-facility metering) against the asker's 12-month pre-cx baseline + ASHRAE Guideline 14 uncertainty bounds. Adjusts for weather and occupancy.
Cited 4 standards, 0.88 confidence
Verified 12.1% savings (within Option C uncertainty band 11.4-12.9%). Vendor's 14.3% used incorrect baseline normalization. Asker now has the math to renegotiate.
Methodology is not a trade secret.
Every case here has the methodology shown, the citations linked, and the confidence floor disclosed. We publish because the alternative — keeping CRE analytical methods locked behind enterprise software — is what makes the field worse over time. If you want to challenge a methodology used in any of these cases, mail hello@ai-smart-buildings.com with "correction" in the subject.
Your question could be next.
Free, 48-hour reply, citations included. Anonymise your name and asset at request — we never publish without permission.