The audit dossier that assembles itself

The problem

Weeks of reconstruction before every electrical safety audit.

Electrical safety and energy-efficiency certifications for export require evidence that today gets reconstructed manually, with the risk of findings from documentation gaps.

• Every appliance leaving the line passes final electrical tests: ground continuity, insulation resistance, dielectric strength (hipot), leakage current and polarity.
• Those results exist, but scattered across test-station printouts, spreadsheets and the ERP, each with its own format and its own gaps.
• Electrical safety and energy-efficiency certifications for export — UL, CSA, NOM, ENERGY STAR, the IEC 60335 family — ask for that evidence by period and product. Each certifying body asks in its own structure, so the same tests get rebuilt several times.
• Someone spends weeks before each audit rebuilding it, and any gap becomes a documentation finding that has to be closed afterwards. Meanwhile, quality engineers spend those weeks on paperwork instead of on the line.

How it fits the IRIS system

Edge captures each test; Agents files it by certifying standard.

Every critical test generates a test-point photo + structured record. Agents organizes it by certifying standard (UL/CSA/NOM, ENERGY STAR) and by period.

The dossier is not assembled before the audit; it builds itself test by test. The same evidence serves every certifying body, filed in the view each one asks for. Anything rebuilt afterwards inherits the gaps of what nobody wrote down. A dossier that grows with every test does not. And the quality team arrives at audit day reviewing, not searching.

See the full IRIS architecture →

Before and after

Audit preparation today versus the self-assembled dossier

Aspect	Today	With iLEAN Edge + Agents
Pre-audit reconstruction	Weeks per certifying body	Zero, it already exists
Hipot and ground continuity records	Printouts and spreadsheets	Photo plus structured record per test
Organized by	Whoever prepares it	Certifying standard and period
Several certifying bodies	Prepared again for each	One evidence base, several views
Documentation gap in white goods	Found by the auditor	Flagged when the test happens
What the auditor gets	Binders	A download

Weeks of pre-audit reconstruction → zero. Risk of documentation findings → eliminated.

Impact estimate

Impact estimate — to be validated with your numbers.

The block below is an estimate to be validated against your plant's actual data. We put it forward so the committee has an order of magnitude; we refine it during the assessment.

• Estimated payback 6-12 months, depending on audit frequency and exported volume.
• Weeks of pre-audit reconstruction brought to zero, for every certifying body that audits you.
• The risk of documentation findings for missing test evidence, eliminated at the source. A finding avoided is also a corrective action plan nobody has to write.
• And the more export markets and certifying bodies you serve, the more the same evidence base pays off. Each new market adds a view, not a new reconstruction project.

Estimated payback 6-12 months depending on audit frequency and exported volume. *Estimate to validate*.

And the fair question from the production manager

"Will the auditor accept a dossier assembled by AI?" — the AI does not create the evidence: each record comes from the test station and the photo of the test point. Reading the result off the tester's screen is an anchored task where the best models drop below 1.5% error [1], and Agents only files it by standard and period. The quality manager reviews the package before it is released to anyone. The evidence is the test itself, captured when it happened; the AI only puts it in order.

^[1] OpenAI paper "Why Language Models Hallucinate", 2025 — on the reliability of AI in anchored tasks.