See what your documents actually contain.
Send us 10 documents from your current project. We extract, reconcile, and show you exactly what we find in 48 hours, before any contract.
If the accuracy isn't what we promised, you owe us nothing.
Send us 10 documents from your current project. We extract, reconcile, and show you exactly what we find in 48 hours, before any contract.
If the accuracy isn't what we promised, you owe us nothing.
Top 1% on Upwork
AI-Led Document Intelligence
Services as Software
Automated validation: P&ID vs instrument index vs datasheet vs C&E matrix. Catches tag conflicts, SIL misclassifications, and revision drift before handover QA, SIL verification, or audit.
Pathnovo's reconciliation engine cross-validates every tag across P&IDs, instrument indexes, datasheets, line lists, valve lists, equipment lists, and C&E matrices. It flags tag conflicts, SIL misclassifications, missing references, material-spec mismatches, revision drift, and C&E-matrix-to-P&ID mismatches, catching errors that would otherwise surface during handover QA, commissioning, HAZOP preparation, SIL verification workshop, or worse, during plant operation. Typical engagement identifies 500-5,000 discrepancies per 1,000 P&IDs reviewed; each one a potential change order or safety risk.
Eleven categories: (1) tag mismatches between P&ID and instrument index; (2) SIL classification inconsistencies per IEC 61511 between SIS datasheets and C&E matrix; (3) renamed or relocated tags not updated across downstream references; (4) missing instrument entries in indexes versus P&ID symbols; (5) design parameter conflicts between datasheets and P&ID annotations; (6) material-spec mismatches between P&ID line number and piping material specification (PMS); (7) revision drift where one document references a superseded version of another; (8) C&E matrix entries pointing to deleted or renamed P&ID tags (blue-ocean workflow; see /compliance/oisd-118 for C&E vs P&ID verification); (9) line-list design conditions inconsistent with P&ID callouts; (10) valve specification drift between valve list and P&ID; (11) equipment datasheet fields inconsistent with equipment list and P&ID.
Manual cross-checking of 5,000 P&IDs against 20,000 datasheets takes 3-6 months of senior engineer effort and achieves 85-90% conflict detection rate. Pathnovo's automated reconciliation processes equivalent volume in 5-14 days, detects 99.5% of conflicts (contractual SLA), and delivers results with full traceability: every flagged conflict includes source document references, field-level evidence, bounding-box annotation, and recommended disposition. For a $60M EPC project, this typically surfaces $36,000-180,000 of hidden procurement and rework exposure before handover.
Every SIS project has safety-critical trip loops defined in the Cause & Effect (C&E) matrix; each entry references specific P&ID tags. Between HAZOP workshop and commissioning, P&IDs go through multiple revisions. Tags get renamed. Equipment gets replaced. Trip loops end up referencing deleted or superseded tags, discovered at SIS verification workshop or worse, during operation. No software competitor anywhere does this specific cross-verification. Pathnovo's engine cross-references C&E matrix against current P&ID revision automatically; every SIS project should run this check before the verification workshop. See /compliance/oisd-118 for integrated safety compliance.
HAZOP preparation requires clean, current, cross-consistent data across P&IDs, datasheets, line lists, equipment lists, and C&E matrix. Manual preparation by the HAZOP leader typically takes 3-8 weeks and still leaves the workshop with data-quality issues that derail discussion. Pathnovo's reconciliation engine runs against the full document set and produces a structured discrepancy report; HAZOP preparation time drops from weeks to hours, workshop discussion stays productive, and action register closure is cleaner.
Per-project managed service pricing. Typical mid-EPC project (500-2,000 P&IDs with associated datasheets, line lists, valve lists, equipment lists, C&E matrices) runs $3,600–$18,000 total with 2-3 week delivery. Larger projects (5,000+ P&IDs) scale proportionally with volume discounts. Pre-HAZOP verification runs $300–$900 per design review package. Enterprise annual contracts for operators running continuous MoC-driven reconciliation available.
Send us 10 documents from your current project. We extract, reconcile, and show you exactly what we find in 48 hours, before any contract.
If the accuracy isn't what we promised, you owe us nothing.
On most EPC projects, the C&E matrix is built from one P&ID revision and the tag register from a later one. SIL classification decisions reference tags that have been renumbered or relocated. This surfaces at SIL verification, when commissioning is six weeks away. Nobody has time to manually cross-check 5,000 drawings against 20,000 datasheets. We automate the entire reconciliation: every tag, every field, every revision.
Connect with Pathnovo to discuss your engineering document intelligence needs.
Email: hello@pathnovo.com
Send us a message, and we'll get back to you shortly.
You can also stay connected through our official social media channels.
Our Offices
Bangalore Office
Unit 101, OXFORD TOWERS 139, Old HAL Airport Rd, Kodihalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560008
P&ID vs instrument index, datasheet vs tag register, C&E matrix vs P&ID tag list, and revision-to-revision comparisons across any document pair in your set.
We compare every revision against the previous version and against related documents. Changes, additions, and new conflicts are flagged with specific field-level references.
Yes. We validate C&E matrix safety interlock logic against the extracted P&ID tag list. SIL classification discrepancies are flagged before your SIL verification engineer begins.
On a typical EPC project with 5,000+ P&IDs, we find 500-2,000+ conflicts that would otherwise surface at handover QA. In our Gulf project, we found 1,847 discrepancies across 12,000 P&IDs.
We flag every conflict with source references, affected fields, and suggested resolution. Your engineering team reviews and approves. We track resolution status through to completion.
A structured comparison of what changed between two revisions of a document, added tags, deleted tags, modified parameters, and new conflicts with related documents.
Yes. We ingest from multiple EDMS, SharePoint, network drives, or email archives. Source system does not matter, we reconcile the data.
Our models track tag identity across renumbering events. If tag 101-FV-001 becomes 101-XV-001, we maintain the linkage and flag downstream impacts.
Conflict reports with source document references, field-level comparisons, severity classification, and resolution tracking. Exportable to Excel, PDF, or direct system import.
Yes. Our agents can monitor your EDMS and re-run reconciliation automatically when new revisions are issued.
Yes. Tags that appear in the register but not in any P&ID, or in a P&ID but missing from the datasheet set, are flagged as orphans.
Each vendor may use different conventions. We normalise across vendors before reconciliation so conflicts are real engineering issues, not format differences.
99.5% on safety-critical fields. We catch conflicts that manual review misses because we check every field in every document, not samples.
Yes. We validate that every document in the MDR exists, is the correct revision, and has been extracted and reconciled.
Reconciliation results feed directly into handover package completeness scoring. QA teams get a clean/not-clean status per tag before submission.