Online tools

See all tools

Design Hub

AI drafts. Engineers sign.

The shelf of everyday engineering tools: seven AI drafting tools, V&V plans and DFMEA, an EN 50155 assessment, two standards calculators, and the design-review checklists, deliverables list and file templates beside them. Whatever a tool drafts lands as a draft — never as a finished document.

  1. Your project record

    §2, §3, BOM, tenders, sketches

  2. Seven drafting tools

    Tenders, patents, diagrams, decks, concept 3D, review packs

    Assurance worksheets

    V&V plans · DFMEA · EN 50155

    Standards calculators

    EN 50124-1 · AS/NZS 3008.1.1

  3. An engineer answers for it

    Documents and worksheets: reviewed and approved by others

    Calculators: a PDF record, recomputed on the server

See the real screenThe Design Hub shelf

One path for every tool

Nothing an AI drafts leaves without two people

  1. 01

    Pick the material

    Tick what the tool should read from the project register — a tender, a client’s sketch, §2 and §3, past deliveries. PDF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint and scans are all read.

  2. 02

    AI drafts

    The job runs in the background. Each tool can be pinned to its own AI engine; left blank, it follows the design engine.

  3. 03

    Filed as a draft

    The output enters the register with a version, the brief it was given and the material it drew on — regenerating reads that record back, so “why does v3 differ from v2” has an answer.

  4. 04

    Someone else reviews

    The person who prepared it cannot review it. Every refusal names the rule that stopped you.

  5. 05

    Approved & released

    Only a release by someone with authority makes it a document — and freezes that revision.

The drafting tools

Seven tools that draft real documents

Tenders

Beta

Tender compliance matrix

Upload the tender into the project register and tick it. The clauses are split out and answered one by one — and the rules that matter are enforced by the system, not left to the engine noticing them.

  • Clauses quoted verbatim, with their printed numbering kept
  • Each answered as full, partial, non-compliant or not applicable — with the deviation, one sentence and its evidence
  • ★ / ▲, disqualifying and substantive-response clauses detected mechanically and listed in their own section
  • Evidence may cite only the material you ticked; anything else is dropped and listed at the end
  • A clause the engine cannot support stays “to confirm” — never a promise made on your behalf

Tender PDF · scans OCR’d → Compliance matrix

  1. Tender PDF

    Scans OCR’d

  2. Clauses, verbatim

    Printed numbering kept

    ★ / ▲ clauses flagged mechanically

  3. Compliance matrix

    Level, deviation and evidence per clause

    Unsupported → “to confirm”

See the real outputTender compliance matrix

Tenders

Beta

Tender technical response

The technical chapters an evaluator actually scores, drafted from this project’s own §3 design rather than from generic bid language.

  • A fixed seven-chapter skeleton
  • Every paragraph names the material it rests on, or is marked “to verify”
  • A coverage table maps each substantive clause to the chapter that answers it
  • Clauses no chapter claims are printed as “not covered” — before the evaluator finds them

Tender + this project’s §3 → Technical response draft

  1. The tender

    This project’s §3

  2. Seven fixed chapters

    Each paragraph cites its source or says “to verify”

  3. Response + coverage table

    Clauses no chapter covers, listed

See the real outputTender technical response

Intellectual property

Beta

Patent disclosure

A Word file in the house disclosure format a patent attorney is actually sent — with the two mistakes that hurt an application designed out.

  • Seven chapters, Chinese-numeral chapter numbers, page numbers in the footer
  • Patent numbers and URLs stripped from the background section — a document cited there reads as prior art the applicant admits
  • Applicant, inventor and date left blank, to be confirmed case by case
  • The first chapter lists what a person must still do before sending it, including the conflicting-application check the system does not run

Project design + material → Disclosure .docx

  1. Design + material

  2. Drafted in the house format

    Patent numbers and URLs stripped

  3. Disclosure .docx

    Applicant and inventor left for a person

See the real outputPatent disclosure

Proposals

Beta

Concept 3D

For the weeks before any CAD exists: a client’s concept image, photo or layout becomes a model they can turn around in a browser.

  • A vision-capable engine reads the picture
  • A rotatable massing model in one self-contained file that opens offline
  • A block whose dimensions came from nowhere is not built — dropped blocks are printed with the reason
  • “Concept only · not dimensioned” sits inside the viewport, not in a footer

Sketch / photo / layout → Rotatable 3D model

  1. Sketch, photo or layout

  2. A vision engine reads it

    No dimension source → block not built

  3. Rotatable massing model

    One offline file, marked “concept only”

Figures

Beta

Diagrams

Architecture, workflow, sequence and state diagrams, drawn on the server and filed as a controlled figure that opens anywhere.

  • Rendered to a self-contained SVG — no script, no CDN, nothing fetched when it is viewed
  • Opens on a phone, from a saved file, inside a PDF export and on mainland networks
  • The layout is graded from its own nodes and edges: disconnected boxes, or a strip too wide to read, go back with the specific objection
  • The better of the two attempts is the one that is filed

Description / design → Controlled SVG figure

  1. Description or design

  2. Drawn on the server

    Disconnected boxes are sent back

  3. Controlled SVG figure

    Opens anywhere, fetches nothing

See the real outputDiagrams

Reporting

Beta

Deck Studio

The project report deck, with its narrative drafted for the occasion — and its facts out of the engine’s reach by construction.

  • Pick the material and say what the deck is for; the AI drafts the narrative frame
  • Requirements, acceptance, schedule, roadmap, risks and past work come straight from the project record
  • Filed in the register by revision, with the brief and the material it drew on

§2 / §3 / schedule + material → Project report deck

  1. §2 · §3 · schedule

    What the deck is for

  2. AI drafts the narrative

  3. Project report deck

    Six fact slides straight from the record

See the real outputDeck Studio

Client collaboration

Beta

Client review pack

The stage review a client actually has to act on, drafted over the §2 skeleton and published as a link they answer.

  • Scope, what we found, information gaps, design issues, blockers, open questions and an action plan
  • Published as one unguessable link — no account, answers on a phone, photos per question
  • Opens in the sending organisation’s language
  • An answer reaches §2 only when someone accepts it

§2 analysis → Review pack + answer link

  1. §2 analysis

  2. Review pack

    Findings, gaps, blockers, questions

  3. One answer link

    An answer reaches §2 only when accepted

See the real screenClient review pack

Engineering to a standard

Tools that answer to a standard, not to a guess

Assurance worksheets the AI drafts and engineers confirm field by field, and calculators that cite the table behind every figure. Each one is signed off or printed as a record — and a missing answer never reads as a pass.

Verification & validation

Beta

V&V plans

A verification and validation matrix traced to the project’s own requirements, with the AI drafting how each one will be proved — and a coverage check that will not let a gap be signed.

  • Items traced to the project’s §2 functional and non-functional requirements
  • Type (verification or validation), method (test, analysis, inspection, demonstration), acceptance criteria, test case, phase and owner
  • The AI drafts the uncovered requirements in checked batches — a batch that fails the check is not written at all
  • Coverage re-runs against the current §2 on every read: uncovered, deleted or rewritten requirements, “pass” without evidence, results without a date
  • No validation item at all blocks submission — verification is not validation
  • Prepared → reviewed → approved by different people, frozen on approval; results are recorded as a revision
  • Excel export: the plan and the requirement traceability matrix

  1. §2 requirements

    Functional and non-functional

  2. AI drafts each one

    Method, acceptance criteria, test case

  3. Live coverage check

    Uncovered or changed requirements

    “Pass” without evidence

  4. Signed and frozen

    Results come as a revision

    Traceability matrix export

Verification is not validation: a plan with no validation item cannot be submitted.

Reliability

Beta

DFMEA

A design FMEA drafted from the design you actually have, rated by the engineer who answers for it.

  • Structure element → function → failure mode → effect (S) → cause (O) → prevention and detection controls (D)
  • The AI drafts from the project’s §3 design outputs and BOM, with a reason for each suggested rating
  • Every AI field is accepted or edited by a person; severity is never accepted in bulk
  • Detection controls cite V&V items, and the reference survives revisions
  • Action Priority follows AIAG-VDA once the handbook tables are loaded; until then AP reads “pending”, and a clearly labelled interim rule asks for action on high severity or a high S × O × D
  • Checked again on submit, review and approval; prepared → reviewed → approved, frozen on approval, Excel export

  1. §3 design outputs

    BOM

  2. AI drafts failure chains

    Function → failure mode → effect → cause → controls

    Suggested S / O / D, with reasons

  3. The engineer confirms every field

    Severity is confirmed on its own

  4. Signed, frozen, Excel

    Detection controls cite V&V tests

AIAG-VDA method. Action Priority appears once the handbook tables are loaded; until then the sheet marks it as pending.

Railway

Beta

EN 50155 assessment

For electronic equipment on rolling stock. The engineer chooses the classes; the system derives the rest, and the engineer reviews it instead of filling it in.

  • One assessment per equipment, under the project; classes pre-filled from the standard’s Annex A defaults
  • Derived: continuous and fluctuating supply ranges, ripple, interruption and change-over requirements, withstand test voltages
  • Derived: operating and switch-on temperatures, the dry-heat test cycle and useful life
  • 89 checklist items — clauses 4 to 10 and the 14 type and routine tests of Table 12 — each marked applicable or not, with the reason
  • Class conflicts are flagged; “compliant” without evidence cannot be submitted
  • Prepared → reviewed → approved by three different people, frozen on approval, Excel export

  1. Classes

    Pre-filled from the standard’s defaults

  2. Derived by the system

    Supply: Un 24 V → 16.8–30 V

    Interruption and change-over

    Test voltages and temperatures

  3. 89-item checklist

    Clauses 4–10 + the 14 tests of Table 12

    Each applicable or not, with the reason

  4. Prepared → reviewed → approved

    Three different people

    Excel export

Every derived value names the table it comes from, and class conflicts are flagged.

Railway

Beta

EN 50124-1 clearance & creepage

Insulation coordination for railway equipment, following the standard step by step — and refusing to answer where the standard does not.

  • The standard’s seven steps: rated insulation voltage → insulation type → pollution degree → rated impulse voltage and altitude correction → clearance and test voltage → creepage → groove width
  • Every table value transcribed from EN 50124-1:2017, with a citation on each figure
  • The worked examples of Annex F reproduced
  • Inputs outside the tables are refused, never extrapolated; blank or “not recommended” cells return “not covered”, with the reason
  • Where the standard leaves a judgement call, the choice made is recorded in the result

  1. Rated insulation voltage

    Insulation type, pollution degree, altitude

  2. The tables of EN 50124-1:2017

    Every value transcribed, each cited

  3. Clearance · creepage

    Impulse and test voltages, groove width

    Out of range → refused

    Never extrapolated

Where the standard leaves a judgement call, the result says which value was used and why.

Electrical

Beta

Cable sizing to AS/NZS 3008.1.1:2025

Current rating, volt drop and minimum cross-section on the 2025 edition, with the cases it does not cover yet stated rather than skipped.

  • Table values from AS/NZS 3008.1.1:2025, upgraded from the 2017 edition
  • Multi-core cable in conduit, spaced from a surface, exposed to sun, buried direct, in underground enclosures, and four thermal-insulation cases
  • Copper or aluminium conductors, up to 500 mm²
  • Checked case by case against an independent calculator
  • Buried runs do not yet apply depth and soil-resistivity corrections, so they never report an all-clear
  • Not covered yet: grouping, single-core, parallel runs and short-circuit

  1. Load, run and installation

    Conduit, spaced, in sun, buried, underground, thermal insulation

    Copper or aluminium, up to 500 mm²

  2. The 2025 tables

    Current rating, derating, volt drop

  3. Minimum cross-section

    Not covered yet

    Grouping, single-core, parallel runs, short-circuit

Checked case by case against an independent calculator.

Records

Calculation records

Every calculator prints its result as a PDF record you can file — computed again on the server, not copied from the screen.

  • One button on every calculator’s result
  • The server recomputes from the inputs; it never trusts the numbers the browser shows
  • Tool and standard, time, preparer, organisation, app version and an input fingerprint
  • Every input with its unit, every result, the clauses cited and the checks not run
  • A status banner — not covered, pass, fail, checks not run — that never defaults to pass

  1. Your inputs

  2. Recomputed on the server

    The browser’s numbers are not trusted

  3. PDF record

    Inputs, results and citations

    “Checks not run”, listed

  4. A status banner

    Never defaults to pass

Reference

Standards by domain

The Design Hub sorted the way engineers look things up: by the domain the standard belongs to.

  • Three domains: electrical, railway and medical
  • Each lists the Design Hub tools built on its standards
  • Beside them, your firm’s standards library (set up per firm) — designation, year and title — searchable by number or name
  • Each title opens the copy in your own document system; the file is never stored a second time

  1. Electrical

    Railway

    Medical

  2. The tools built on its standards

    The standards your firm holds

    Designation, year, title

  3. Opened from your own document library

    A link, never a second copy

Reviews & references

The tools that keep a design honest

Checklists live on the server, published per organisation and versioned — publishing adds a revision and never overwrites, so the wording a review was filled in against last month is still there.

  1. Your design

  2. A checklist per area

    Symbols & footprints, schematics, PCB, RF/EMC, manufacturability, cables

  3. A shared review record

    Finding, notes and photos per item

See the real screenDesign review (eTAR)

Design review (eTAR)

Symbols & footprints, architecture, schematics, PCB, RF / high-speed & EMC, manufacturability and cable checklists — a finding, notes and photos per item, in a record the team shares.

Design deliverables

The controlled reference for what each design and development stage should produce, published per organisation and versioned.

File templates

The company’s Word, Excel and PowerPoint masters — and which one your organisation actually generates into.

Quality system

Your controlled company documents, under the same numbering and the same three signatures.

On the shelf next

  • MTBF calculator
  • Flow-rate calculator
  • mTAR
  • Design change

Shown in the product as placeholders that do not open yet.

Describe your project. Get an engineered answer.

Type it, say it, or drop in a drawing — the intake takes minutes, and the analysis starts immediately.

Start a request Talk to us