CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Watch permit conditions and code changes across a development pipeline

For: Development manager or planning compliance lead with many sites at different stages

Pattern: WatchtowerNeeds a connectorDesigned for 16 to 300 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

Each consent carries conditions with triggers and expiry dates, and local plans and building regulations change while projects are in design. A missed pre-commencement condition or a lapsed consent stops a site.

The ask

“Here are the planning consents, permits and condition discharge letters for all our sites, and the local plan policies and building regulations we designed to. Keep track of every condition and deadline, and when a policy or regulation changes, tell me which sites and which design commitments depend on it.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Planning consents and permits with conditions
  • Condition discharge applications and decisions
  • Local plan policies and building regulations relied on
  • Site register with stage and key dates

The unit of work

One worker task per one condition or policy dependency for one site.

Why a swarm fits

Hundreds of conditions and policy links are each small and independent. A changed policy or a new decision letter should trigger a re-read of only the sites and conditions tied to it.

Not for

Advising whether a design complies with a regulation, or handling a single site with a short consent.

The decision tree

6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Scope checkA choice among options

    Before work starts on a unit

    Does this new document refer to a consent, condition number or policy that appears in our tracker?

    Sees only: The new document's reference line and the tracker's index

    Why: Only work that depended on the changed source is redone.

    • Refers to a tracked itemthenAccept
    • Refers to nothing trackedthenSkip this unit
    • Reference is ambiguousthenEscalate to a strong model

  2. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkA choice among options

    After a worker answers

    Does the quoted decision letter state that this condition number is discharged, in whole or in part?

    Sees only: One decision letter extract and the condition's number and text

    Why: A condition shows as discharged only on the authority's own words.

    • Discharged in fullthenAccept
    • Discharged in partthenMark unresolved
    • Refused or further information requestedthenMark unresolved
    • Letter does not mention this conditionthenReject and retry

  3. Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the quoted consent text state the time limit and the starting event from which the tracker's expiry date was derived?

    Sees only: The tracker's date entry and the quoted consent passage

    Why: Keeps every deadline traceable to the consent rather than to a spreadsheet.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  4. Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the site's consent or design statement cite the policy or regulation that has changed?

    Sees only: The changed policy reference and the site document's policy list

    Why: Links a change to a site only where the site's own papers rely on it.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  5. Run control, between rounds

    Another round?Yes or no, with a probability

    Between rounds

    Have all conditions and sites linked to the changed document been re-checked in this round?

    Sees only: The linked items list with status

    Why: Ends the round without re-reading the rest of the pipeline.

    • Yes: 0.70 or higherthenStop
    • Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.70thenContinue
    • No: below 0.40thenContinue

  6. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Does the finding concern a pre-commencement condition, an expiry date, a partial discharge or a changed policy a site relies on?

    Sees only: One tracker entry with its quotes

    Why: The development manager acts on programme and a planning professional gives the compliance advice.

    Accountable: The development manager owns programme decisions; a planning consultant or licensed professional owns compliance advice.

    • Yes: 0.40 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.15 up to 0.40thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.15thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model extracts conditions with triggers and dates and maps each site's policy dependencies.

    Decisions here:1. Scope check

  2. Workers

    Small fast workers from an open-weight family re-check one condition or dependency when its source document changes.

    Designed for 16 to 300 agents, one worker task per one condition or policy dependency for one site. Each worker receives only its own unit.

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family checks that a condition's status is supported by a quoted decision letter.

    Decisions here:2. Evidence check3. Evidence check4. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model maintains the per-site tracker and lists approaching deadlines and unclear statuses.

    Decisions here:5. Another round?

  5. Accountable person

    The development manager owns programme decisions; a planning consultant or licensed professional owns compliance advice.

    Decisions here:6. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • A condition is shown as discharged only with a quoted decision
  • Deadlines are derived from quoted consent text and the stated start date
  • Policy changes are linked to a site only where the consent or design statement cites them

What comes back

  • Condition tracker per site with sources and status
  • Upcoming trigger and expiry dates
  • Sites affected by a policy or regulation change
  • Conditions with unclear or undocumented status

What to measure

  • Time from published change to affected-site list
  • Statuses confirmed by the planning lead
  • Deadlines found late or missed
  • Cost per site watched

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Real estate and construction

Find conflicts between specifications, schedules and drawing notes

For: Design manager or lead consultant coordinating disciplines before tender or construction issue

Architectural, structural and services documents are written by different teams.

Pattern: Hierarchical decompositionNeeds a connector6 decisionsDesigned for 30 to 500 agents

Level subcontractor bids against the scope, by specialist brief

For: Commercial manager, quantity surveyor or estimator comparing trade package bids

Bids for the same package arrive in different formats with different exclusions, qualifications and programme assumptions.

Pattern: Specialist panelRuns today6 decisionsDesigned for 4 to 80 agents