“Only the UV strip stitching has come loose” is still a customer report
Two sail bags arrive, with a message about a genoa and several unlabelled photographs. The customer says “only the UV strip stitching has come loose”. Keep that statement as a report on the intake sheet, without turning it into “sound sailcloth” or permission to restitch. AI can be trialled to prepare an intake sheet and missing questions; inspection remains the sailmaker’s job.
This exercise includes two sails, a disagreement between documents and a manual reference for checking the result. The proposal prepares the conversation before a quote; it does not choose repairs, materials, dimensions or fitness for sailing.
UV cover, stitching and sailcloth: separate the request from the inspection
Port Townsend Sails lists restitching or fully replacing a UV cover among its repairs and offers sail assessment with a repair proposal. Casca Sails describes inspection once the sail is at its loft, followed by a recommendation call. These are those lofts’ published services, not evidence that a photograph can establish another sail’s condition.
Cadenote has a specific solar-protection-band form: it asks for leech and foot dimensions in metres and distinguishes replacing an old band from adding a new one. This helps name fields. It does not mean those measurements are sufficient for your quote or authorise deriving them from boat length. In this trial, keep the requested cover work, reported stitching issue, sailcloth condition awaiting inspection and scope to be agreed separate.
Two bags and a photograph called genova.jpg: do not link them by intuition
Everything below is invented: references, messages, measurements and files. D1, enquiry for job V-24: “Genoa G-1: the blue strip has come loose; I want a quote to replace it. Leech 10.2 m; foot 5.1 m. Mainsail M-1 is in a separate bag, for inspection only.” D2, unconfirmed intake note: “G-1: restitch strip; mainsail: replace strip.” D3, attachment list: “genova.jpg, detalle.jpg; no indication of which sail appears in each photograph.” The filenames do not establish what was photographed.
The table is our manual review of those texts, not an AI response or a sail inspection result. Measurements are fictional declarations for practising data entry, not measuring instructions or recommended values.
| Reference | What to retain | What needs clarification |
|---|---|---|
| G-1, requested work | D1 requests a strip-replacement quote; D2 records restitching. | Keep both versions and ask which request should be assessed. Do not treat restitching and replacement as equivalent or choose by arrival order. |
| M-1, scope | D1: inspection only. D2: replace strip. | Flag the scope discrepancy. Do not transfer G-1’s request to M-1. |
| Photographs | D3 lists two files with no confirmed link. | Request an explicit link between each photograph and sail; do not assign it by filename. |
| G-1’s declared dimensions | D1: leech 10.2 m; foot 5.1 m. | Copy field, unit and source. Professional checking remains outstanding; do not copy to M-1 or add them to calculate material. |
| Condition and authorisation | D1 reports a loose strip and requests a quote. | Sailcloth condition and appropriate work await professional inspection. No confirmed repair authorisation exists in the exercise. |
Turn the gaps into a short, checkable question
A draft for this case could read: “For V-24, can you confirm which photographs show G-1 and which show M-1? Your message requests assessment of strip replacement for G-1 and inspection only for M-1; our note records restitching and replacement respectively. Which request should be recorded for each sail? Specific work will be proposed after inspection and await your acceptance.” This is proposed wording, not a sent or accepted message.
When the items arrive, a loft staff member must check physical correspondence with the references. Reserve separate spaces on the sheet for customer reports, checked physical intake, the professional’s report, the proposal and authorisation. Do not mark a stage complete because an assistant wrote a convincing summary. Retain who confirmed each link and which note was corrected.
An instruction to trial with those texts
Copy only fictional D1, D2 and D3 into an authorised text assistant. This exercise does not require uploading photographs or requesting computer vision. Before using real files, review permissions, processing terms, access and retention; avoid entering personal details or confidential commercial documents without appropriate conditions.
- Proposed instruction: “Prepare documentary intake for V-24. Create one sheet for G-1 and another for M-1. For every item include literal text, source document and status: reported, conflicting or pending. Separate request, linked photographs, declared dimensions, checked physical intake, inspection, proposal and authorisation. Do not assign photographs by filename. Keep restitching and replacement as separate requests. Do not fill in sailcloth condition, material, cost, turnaround or fitness for use. Do not calculate material from measurements, authorise work or send messages. Return questions for the responsible person.”
- Check the response against the manual table. Assigning detalle.jpg to M-1 without confirmation, describing the cloth as sound or turning a quote request into an accepted repair are specific failures. A correct quotation does not compensate for an invented conclusion. The prompt expresses the task; it does not guarantee model behaviour.
Include an apparently easy enquiry in the first pilot
Prepare three fictional files before testing: the case above, one with photographs explicitly linked and another saying “leech 10.2” without a unit. In the second, the link may be recorded as a documented report, without becoming checked physical intake. In the third, the unit remains a question: do not inherit metres from another company’s form.
Save your manual reference first. Count unsupported photograph assignments, invented data, omitted discrepancies and apparent authorisations. Also record total preparation, checking and correction time against manual intake. These are proposed metrics and cases; we have not run the pilot or demonstrated savings or accuracy.
As a trial criterion, any invented diagnosis or authorisation sends the sheet back for correction. If the proposal requires more review than it contributes, retain the manual sheet and adjust the scope. Assistant output does not replace inspection or constitute technical acceptance.
When a connection to the loft is worth investigating
The manual trial ends with copied text and a reviewed draft. Integration would be a separate project: linking job, bag, sail and attachments; keeping clarification history; and separating intake, inspection, quotation and acceptance with permissions. Available software and data would need assessment; we assume no sailmaking application is compatible.
Adaris can assess custom software, CRM or AI automation for that bounded process. An initial scope could prepare internal drafts and flag missing fields, keeping technical and commercial decisions with responsible people. This is not an already available proprietary sailmaking tool. Commercial enquiries are handled in Spanish.
Related services
Sources
Do enquiries arrive before you can identify every sail?
Tell us how you receive bags, photographs and requests. We can assess a bounded custom project for your process; commercial enquiries in Spanish.