The Challenge
A large project generates a steady stream of RFIs and change orders, each of which needs to be checked against the original contract scope to determine whether it's a legitimate clarification, a billable change, or scope creep that was never approved. Today that means a project manager holding the contract documents open alongside a tracking spreadsheet and manually deciding which bucket each item falls into.
“Answering "is this change in scope" means checking the contract, the spec, and the drawings all at once — that's a reconciliation problem, not a lookup.”
The Solution
The Saarthi Project Documentation Copilot Agent answers questions about RFIs and change orders directly against the project's own contract, spec, and drawing documents — citing exactly which contract clause or spec section it drew from, and flagging when a change order has no corresponding approved scope.
The reason this needs to be agentic rather than a lookup is that answering "is this in scope" requires retrieving from the contract, the spec, and the drawing set, then reconciling what each says before it can answer — not returning whatever a single document happens to mention. That's a multi-source reconciliation decision, not a single retrieval.
What This Pattern Typically Delivers
Project managers get a grounded, cited answer on scope questions instead of manually cross-referencing a spreadsheet against the contract set, and unapproved scope creep gets flagged before it becomes a billing dispute.