Engineering AI Benchmarks
Measured Outcomes, Audited Methodology

99.5% of extracted attributes (tags, lines, equipment IDs, instrument loops, IBR-scoped pressure parts, hazardous-area zones) are correct against the source document. Measured at field level, not document level. Sample-based audit per ISO 2859-1 statistical sampling. Independent QA engineer (not extraction team). Contractual remedy clause: re-process + credit if accuracy slips. Most recent audit cycle on the live tier-1 EPC engagement: 99.51% measured.

Customer names are withheld under NDA. What is publishable is the engagement scope (workflow, scale band, measured accuracy) and the measurement methodology, which is why the anonymised case studies carry the process detail rather than the logo. Reference calls with the customer are available under NDA on request via the Pathnovo sales channel.

Both in-build engagements are active production builds. Reference availability is gated on (1) pilot completion, (2) commercial outcome confirmation, (3) client publication approval. Until release, engagement scope is publishable (P&ID revision delta + MR package for one; BOM + datasheet compliance for the other) but detailed customer narrative is held back per pilot-stage NDA.

Three differences. (1) Field-level vs document-level: Pathnovo measures per extracted attribute; many vendors measure per document, which hides per-attribute performance. (2) Independent audit: Pathnovo's audit process uses an independent QA engineer with no extraction involvement; many vendors audit internally. (3) Contractual remedy: Pathnovo's 99.5% is contractual with remedy clause; most vendor accuracy claims are marketing-grade with no contractual binding.

PE exam (Process Engineering Principles & Practice) tests theoretical process engineering knowledge: thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, reaction kinetics, distillation, separations. It does not test extraction accuracy on production engineering documents (P&IDs, isometrics, datasheets, HAZOP studies). Pathnovo's benchmark is the engineering reality: actual extraction outcome on a live tier-1 EPC engagement at 10,000+ tag scale with 99.5% measured accuracy. PE exam is a credibility proxy; production extraction is the proof.

The live tier-1 EPC engagement is the deepest production engagement: 10,000+ tags is large enough to be statistically robust (not a marketing pilot of 50 drawings), and the engagement is live and continuous (not a finished-and-archived project). For credibility purposes, one large continuous engagement at 99.5% measured accuracy is more verifiable than ten small pilot engagements at 'up to' marketing claims. As the in-build and future engagements complete and customers approve publication, Pathnovo will publish each as a reference following the same depth standard.

Yes. Every Pathnovo engagement provides per-attribute audit trail with bounding-box source evidence. Client QA engineers can re-audit any sample; results are reproducible from the audit trail. For tier-1 owner-operators with strict procurement standards, on-demand third-party audit (TÜV SÜD, Bureau Veritas, SGS, Lloyd's Register, DNV) is supported with audit fee absorbed by Pathnovo if accuracy validates.

P&ID extraction: 99.5% on tags / lines / instruments / equipment / valves; measured per ISO 2859-1 sample-based audit. Isometric MTO: 99.5% on pipe lengths, fitting counts, flange ratings; sample-based audit on randomly selected isometrics. Mill certificate traceability: 99.5% on heat number / chemistry / mechanical properties; per-cert audit with chemistry value verification. HAZOP register extraction: 99.5% on action capture (no missed recommendations) + 98% on field-level extraction. Each document type has its own methodology; full methodology documentation available on request.