“UTM with heights” still leaves questions open
A brief requests a survey in DWG and PDF, “in UTM with heights”. The folder contains an old drawing and a point list without supporting documentation. Before preparing delivery, the office needs to separate what is requested from what each file actually establishes. This guide proposes AI as help with organising those questions, without transforming coordinates or validating the survey.
The fictional exercise contains a request, a point-list header and a drawing note. It provides a document review record and an instruction for trialling it. The professional retains decisions about reference systems, calculations, accuracy and technical acceptance; the assistant prepares a draft for review.
Keep horizontal reference, heights and file format separate
The Spanish IGN geodetic calculator help requires X, Y and zone for its UTM file input. It also distinguishes ellipsoidal and orthometric heights when describing conversion using a geoid model. This documentation supports separate fields; it does not make a chat assistant a surveying calculation tool.
For this workflow, reserve separate fields for the stated system and projection, zone, height reference and delivery formats. Copy supplied details literally with their source. Do not infer a system from a folder name, the DWG extension or the appearance of numbers.
- Distinguish the brief’s requirement, a file’s declaration and professional validation. A request specifying ETRS89 does not prove an attachment uses it.
- Record units, column order and supporting document when supplied. A header X;Y;Z leaves unresolved anything its documentation does not explain.
- Identify each version and who must resolve outstanding questions. This document record does not replace a survey report or certify that two datasets can be used together.
Fictional case: three documents that cannot be assumed equivalent
Everything below is invented for practice, without real properties, coordinates or customers. A, current request: “Deliver DWG and PDF; ETRS89, UTM zone 30; orthometric heights. Confirm vertical reference and units”. B, received point-list note: “Header X;Y;Z; no description of reference, units or documented column order attached”. C, old drawing note: “Title block ED50; no zone or height reference in this note”. No file has undergone technical checks.
The table is an authored manual reference for checking a future draft, not observed AI output or a surveying result.
| Source | Information preserved | Outstanding question or check |
|---|---|---|
| A: request | DWG and PDF; ETRS89, UTM zone 30; orthometric heights. | Confirm requested vertical reference and units; the requirement does not validate B or C. |
| B: point list | Literal header X;Y;Z; metadata absent from the note. | Request documentation of system, projection/zone where applicable, heights, units and column meaning/order. Do not assign A’s details to B. |
| C: old drawing | Title block states ED50; no zone or height reference in this note. | Record the documentary difference from requested ETRS89 for the professional. Do not relabel or transform the drawing. |
| Brief status | Documentation needs clarification; no technical validation. | Prepare questions for review; do not mark delivery approved or ready for setting out. |
Turn scattered notes into questions someone can resolve
First copy each fragment under A, B or C without merging them. Then place supplied details in the relevant column and mark missing information “not supplied”. A declared difference between documents calls for a question, not automatic correction of the original.
An internal draft for this exercise could say: “A requests ETRS89 UTM zone 30 and orthometric heights; vertical reference and units need confirmation. B has no reference or unit documentation in the received material. C states ED50. We need B’s documentation and a professional decision about C before preparing delivery”. This is a proposed enquiry, not a sent message.
If later clarification identifies only B’s units, update that field and preserve the clarification with date and source. Do not also close questions about heights or system, or apply the answer to drawing C. Human review should compare the draft against all three complete notes.
A prompt for reviewing the brief without calculating coordinates
Attach only the fictional A, B and C notes above. Use this instruction and check the output against the table. The instruction proposes behaviour; it does not establish that a particular assistant will follow it.
Errors to look for before using the draft
A convincing explanation can hide a detail assigned to the wrong source. First check that every assertion retains its originating document. This trial does not assess calculations, property boundaries, tolerances, construction safety or administrative validity.
- If B becomes ETRS89 because A requests it, reject that attribution: a requirement has become file metadata without supporting evidence.
- If AI changes ED50 to ETRS89 in C’s note to make it match, restore the literal text and preserve the difference for review. Reject a purported conversion without technical intervention.
- If it interprets Z as orthometric height without B’s documentation, return to “not supplied”. A’s request for orthometric heights does not identify another document’s third column.
- If it proposes a reference code, accuracy or compliant delivery without a source and validation, do not add it to the record as fact. This exercise is not for setting out or deciding field work.
A small pilot with the expected reference written first
Prepare invented briefs including an incomplete requirement, an old note stating another system and a partial clarification. Before trialling AI, the professional writes the details to preserve, outstanding questions and conclusions that would be unjustified.
Record details assigned to the wrong file, fields completed without sources, omitted questions and incorrectly applied version changes. Note review time and corrections. These are proposed metrics; we have not run the pilot or measured savings or accuracy. If the draft keeps confusing requirement and evidence, revise the process before connecting it to project records.
Use fictional data only for the trial. Before using real documents, check permissions, service terms, access and data minimisation. Remove unnecessary personal identifiers and project details. This guide does not recommend a specific platform or establish its privacy terms.
When a manual trial is enough and when to assess integration
The manual trial ends with a reviewed draft outside the technical files. Automation requires agreement on which documents it may read, how it preserves versions and sources, who receives questions and who validates each status. Any CAD or surveying software integration needs its actual options and permissions checked; none is established here.
An initial custom development could be limited to an internal requirements and questions record, with originals and technical approval under the office’s control. If a reviewed spreadsheet already solves the problem, start there. You do not need automated calculations or document dispatch to evaluate this scope.
Adaris Tech provides custom software, CRM and automation with AI integrated case by case. Discuss how your office receives and reviews briefs to assess a limited solution. This is not an existing Adaris surveying application or an installed connection. Commercial enquiries are handled in Spanish.
Related services
Sources
Do briefs arrive with unclear reference information?
Tell us how you review requirements and documents. We can assess a custom internal record with professional control; commercial enquiries in Spanish.