| UC1 | C1 + C3 | We don't know if this AI tool is safe to use on stamped work | ACS Stamp-Safe classification — L1 Responsible Charge (22% weight) determines whether the AI governance chain is documented and enforceable. | Vertex DocGen AI automating BIM CD sets — does the audit trail support responsible charge? | Avoids professional-licence exposure before a single drawing is issued. |
| UC2 | C3 | We need to justify an AI tool purchase to our principal or board | FitScore with full formula audit trail — ACS × 0.50 + LayerAlignment × 0.30 + MaturityMatch × 0.20 — plus downloadable procurement report. | Harlow SiteVerify AI at enterprise GC — board-ready FitScore replaces vendor sales deck. | Replaces the ad-hoc vendor-deck-and-committee cycle with a defensible one-page procurement report. |
| UC3 | C3 | We got burned by an AI tool that didn't work in our state | Hard filter HF1 blocks any tool not licensed in your project's US state before FitScore is computed. Cannot be overridden. | Archistar covers specific US cities — HF1 fires before score shown for unsupported jurisdictions. | Prevents tool deployment producing non-compliant outputs in unsupported jurisdictions. |
| UC4 | C1 + C2 | Our insurer asked us to document our AI governance at renewal | Firm Maturity Profile (C2) across 7 dimensions + Stamp-Safe classification — exportable as structured governance evidence for E&O renewal. | AI exclusions in commercial E&O policies via Verisk CG 40 47/48 forms (Jan 2026). | Maintains E&O coverage continuity. Undocumented AI governance can void coverage. |
| UC5 | C2 | We don't know if our team is ready to use AI safely | Digital Maturity Profile — 7 dimension scores (0–10), peer benchmark, gap identification. A named licensed-professional reviewer is a documented D4 Governance requirement — firms without one surface in the D4 gap detail. | A generative-planning tool's outputs meaningless to a firm at Developing D2 maturity. | Prevents wasted tool investment on tools your team isn't ready to operate safely. |
| UC6 | C3 | We need to compare 3 tools for a specific project and pick one | FitScore comparison view — up to 10 tools ranked for your exact project context. Delivery Risk, Compliance Exposure, Competitive Position scores. | Comparing three progress-tracking tools on a state DOT public highway project. | Replaces ad-hoc vendor-eval workshops with a ranked, methodology-grounded shortlist you can run on demand. |
| UC7 | C1 | A vendor told us their tool is compliant — we don't know if that's true | Independent editorial ACS score with evidence citations. Never influenced by vendor relationships or advertising. Every claim verified from public sources. | A vendor claims "ISO 19650-aligned" — L4 determines if that's substantiated. | Surfaces compliance gaps before contract signature. |
| UC8 | C3 | We are on a public contract with 15% DBE requirements — can we use this tool? | HF5 checks the tool's DBE subcontractor capacity against the project's DBE requirement on public-sector contracts, and blocks procurement with a CRITICAL flag if capacity is missing or below the requirement. | A progress-tracking AI on a state DOT design-build bridge — HF5 blocks if the tool's DBE subcontractor capacity doesn't meet the project's requirement. | Avoids DBE compliance findings during state DOT contract audits. |
| UC9 | C2 | We want to track our firm's AI readiness and report progress quarterly | FMP history retained across assessments — progress dashboard shows dimension score movement over time with executive KPI report export. | The CDO exports the firm's D4 Governance trend across quarterly assessments — an E&O-carrier-legible, board-reviewable scored progression. | Transforms digital transformation from cost centre to measurable board-level investment. |
| UC10 | C3 | We need to know which AI tools firms like ours are actually using | Competitive Position Score shows where your firm sits vs peer median — Below Median / At Median / Above Median / Leading. | When a site-planning tool gains broad adoption, CPS shows your competitive position. | Prevents investment in tools below your capability ceiling. |
| UC11 | C3 | We don't know which AI tools exist for our type of work | Tool suggestion inside C3 — enter project type, discipline, workflow problem. Returns registry matches filtered by discipline_scope and code edition support. | Rail engineer on a regional rail transit project — returns tools with ASCE 7 + AREMA support only. | Replaces Google search with compliance-filtered shortlist. |
| UC12 | C1 | We are a non-US AI vendor — can we sell to US AEC firms and what do we need to fix? | US Market Readiness summary — shows accessible states, missing certifications (SOC 2, CMMC 2.0, FedRAMP), and remediation path. | Foreign-origin AI vendors seeking US work — maps compliance gaps blocking federal contracts. | Turns US market entry from months of state-by-state legal research into a scored gap analysis with a remediation roadmap. |
| UC13 | C1 | We used an AI structural analysis tool — can we stamp those calculations? | Stamp-Safe classification checks whether the AI component has an explicit licensed-professional review gate before output enters a stamped calculation package. | An AI-assisted structural connection-design tool — does the UI enforce a review gate? | Protects professional licence. No documented review gate is an ethics violation under most state board rules. |
| UC14 | C1 | We used a general-purpose LLM to review our specifications — is that safe for a public contract? | L2 AI Governance + L3 Code Edition scores determine compliance. AASHTO explicitly prohibits entering its content into any AI tool — this is a documented, citable violation. | A general-purpose LLM reviewing bridge spec against AASHTO LRFD — IP violation, not just AI risk. | Avoids AASHTO IP violation that could trigger contract termination. |
| UC15 | C1 | We used an AI tool to review a set of plans — who is liable if it missed something? | Stamp-Safe + L1 + gonogo_signal determines if disclaimer and oversight chain is sufficient. Verisk CG 40 47/48 (Jan 2026): undocumented AI review may void E&O coverage. | A general-purpose LLM reviewing structural drawings — no protocol = potential E&O exclusion under CG 40 48. | Documented AI review protocol is the difference between a covered and excluded E&O claim. |