How workflows work

A workflow is one job Aevy does end to end on your documents: it reads a kind of report as it arrives, turns what it finds into records you can work, and keeps them current as the next one lands. Each is switched on per asset, so you take the ones that earn their place on the sites where they earn it.

Switching one on

Ask your Aevy contact for the workflows you want, and name the assets you want them on. You do not have to have everything ready first: the conversation covers what is missing.

How a workflow starts

Setting one up is a manual job, done once. Running it is not: from the moment it is switched on, the workflow reads every document that arrives without anyone asking it to.

Everything left of the divider happens once, and takes a conversation and the documents arriving. Everything right of it repeats on its own. Your standing job is the last box: review what Aevy proposes, and work what you accept.

Two questions get settled while it is being set up, and they are the same two whichever workflow you pick. How high is the bar, so you get the work that matters rather than every line in the report. And how far back to read, whether that is everything on file or from a date you name. Each guide says what else its own workflow asks.

The workflows

Every workflow names the technologies it covers, because a blade campaign and a battery capacity test have nothing in common except that somebody has to read them. Each guide repeats its own scope under the title, and the sidebar carries a badge for the two that are narrower than all three.

Workflow	Runs on	What it gives you
Blade inspection findings	Wind	Every defect per turbine and per blade, with severity and position, as one register across campaigns.
Statutory inspections	Wind, solar, storage	Per system and per part: last inspection, validity window, next due date, and whether past cycles ran on time.
Oil sampling	Wind, and transformers on any site	Lab results per sample point, trended, with the anomalies the lab flagged raised as work.
Preventive maintenance	Wind, solar, storage	What the service visit actually found, separated from the checklist it was supposed to run.
Corrective maintenance and service orders	Wind, solar, storage	Repairs tied to the fault that caused them, with the parts consumed and the work left unfinished.
Handover punchlist	Wind, solar, storage	The outstanding items at takeover as one tracked list, with what has since been closed and by whom.
Internal auditing	Wind, solar, storage	Your own checklist run across an asset on demand, answered document by document, with the gaps raised.
Document handover	Wind, solar, storage	What should be on file against what is, so a handover or an audit starts from a list rather than a hunt.

Obligations are tracked too, from contracts and from service intervals, but that is the obligations record rather than a workflow of its own. Ask for it the same way.

Two more run once when an asset first arrives rather than continuously, so they are covered in Your first steps instead: asset information onboarding fills in the asset’s own record, and getting to know your documentation works out which agreements govern it and who they involve.

Decide what runs without you

Every workflow ends the same way: Aevy proposes, and a suggestion waits until somebody accepts it. A workflow you have come to trust can be told to accept its own proposals instead, and choosing which ones is the decision worth making deliberately.

It is tempting to read that as a question about trust in the output. It is really a question about staying informed. An accepted proposal changes a record on your asset, and if nobody sees it happen, the register drifts away from what your team believes is in it.

	Leave it for review	Let it accept itself
What the record is	A judgment somebody owns: a defect’s severity, whether a repair really closed a fault, what a contract commits you to.	A fact the document states plainly, where being wrong is visible and cheap to correct.
The volume	Small enough to read. A queue you clear in ten minutes a week is worth keeping.	Beyond reading, where a growing backlog of unreviewed proposals is its own risk.
Where you are	Still calibrating the bar, so the queue is how you find out what the workflow proposes.	Settled, and you have stopped rejecting things.

Whichever you choose, stay told. Every change is on the record’s activity log, and notifications put the ones you care about in front of you. Auto-accepting without turning on a way to see what was accepted is the arrangement to avoid: it is the only one where a record can change and nobody finds out.

Aevy leaves auto-accept off until you ask for it, so the starting position is always the one where you see everything.

Limits

A workflow reads what you hold. It cannot report on a campaign whose reports never reached Aevy, and a gap in the paperwork shows as a gap rather than as a clean result.

Switching one on is per organization and per asset, so a workflow running on one site is not running on the rest of the portfolio until it is extended there.

What’s next

• Blade inspection findings: one workflow end to end, from the first report to the second campaign.
• Asset information onboarding: the one that usually runs first.
• How your data gets in: the two ways documents reach Aevy.
• Suggestions: the review loop every workflow ends in.