Field automation ยท construction reporting

site-progress-report

A tagged photo can prove that coverage exists. It cannot prove that the photographed work is correct.

Public · synthetic demo
The problem

A folder of photos does not show which required evidence is missing.

Teams need checklist coverage, recency, and phase order before a human opens the images. Claiming to inspect the pixels would answer a different question.

Input

Tagged metadata for a fictional site.

Site: Maple Ridge - Building B
Photos ingested: 28
Areas: 3
Phases: 4

Fields used:
timestamp
GPS
area
phase
inspection item
The money shot

Coverage gaps become a concrete review list.

Gaps found
13
Missing items
10
Missing GPS
1
Duplicate tags
2

Area completion is A1 100.0%, A2 91.7%, and A3 25.0%. The run also identifies one out-of-sequence photo and one stale area.

How it's verified

Every percentage reconciles to required and covered items.

Area / phaseRequiredCoveredComplete
A1 / framing33100.0%
A2 / framing3266.7%
A3 / framing300.0%

A3's last photo is 20 days old against a threshold of 14. Photo P0013 is listed because framing appeared after a later phase.

Honest limitations

Presence is not workmanship, safety, or compliance.

  • The pipeline never opens or interprets image pixels.
  • It trusts timestamps, GPS, and human-authored tags.
  • A mistagged photo can produce a false coverage result.
  • A qualified inspector must still examine the photos and the site.
The report answers whether evidence is present, ordered, and recent. jigonyoo.com · Back to hub