Keep the source close to the answer.
A useful operating answer needs more than a conclusion. The person reviewing it needs to understand which equipment it concerns, where the information came from, and what remains uncertain.
Puffstack uses evidence-ready as a design goal for that relationship. The source, time, status, method, operating context, and limits remain available for inspection.
Make the handoff explicit.
A workflow should make clear why its output matters and who needs to review it. The engineering owner may need to confirm a mapping. The shift engineer may need to compare an event with related trends.
These are different decisions with different evidence needs. The workflow should carry the context that supports the specific review, rather than treating every result as a generic recommendation.
Use the first example to expose the gaps.
A focused example can show whether the source material supports the intended decision. It can also reveal a missing document, an ambiguous tag name, or an unconfirmed operating limit.
The aim is to make those gaps visible while the scope is still manageable. Then the team can decide what to connect, collect, or clarify next.
Keep plant authority clear.
The people responsible for the plant define its operating rules and authorize actions that affect equipment. AI orchestration should make their review more informed.
That principle shapes the Puffstack approach from the first strategy conversation through the design of a useful proof.