The application layer for regulated industries

Make complex
data your asset.

Turn fragmented project and portfolio data into evidenced, auditable decisions for infrastructure, construction and real estate.

HS2: contractor assurance review from two weeks to 35 seconds. Read the case study →

Trusted by

Why BuildPrompt.

Project evidence sits in documents, registers and systems that do not talk to each other. BuildPrompt checks it in one place and shows the source behind every answer.

Safer workPut the right safety information in the next briefing.

Health and safety Spot recurring risks and brief crews with the evidence attached. →

Better qualityFind recurring issues before the next package repeats them.

Quality Catch repeat defects before they cost rework or damages. →

Confident handoverSee what stands between the work and sign-off.

Handover Clear missing evidence before it delays acceptance. →

Stronger asset decisionsUnderstand obligations, costs and the action to take.

Asset Management Find obligations and charges before the next payment. →

Confidence backed by evidence

See the issue.
Trust the answer.

Find missing evidence and unresolved reviews. Put each action with the person who can move acceptance forward.

Clear the path to sign-off.

Illustrative data · Example 1 / 3Cedar handover readiness

Question: Which requirements can’t be accepted yet, and who must act?

2,437requirements still need accepted evidence

21,944 of 24,381 accepted (90%). Gate dates 18 / 25 Nov need programme confirmation.

Why acceptance is still open

Equipment references conflict1,00741.3%

Reviewer acceptance pending81733.5%

Certificate evidence pending61325.2%

SourcesRequirements and evidence
CheckMatch each requirement
FindingOpen evidence gaps

Next action / owner

Outstanding work

Contractor: correct 1,007 equipment references and supply 613 signed certificates. Assurance reviewer: sign off or return the 817 requirements that already have evidence.

Owner · Assurance reviewer

Question: Which equipment totals need reconciliation?

+220equipment units between two recorded totalsA difference between totals is not a count of mismatched rows.

Two sources on the same baselineequipment units

Equipment schedule18,400

Installed register18,620

SourcesSchedules and registers
CheckMatch equipment totals
FindingSource totals disagree

Next action / owner

Asset information

Reconcile the equipment schedule with the register before acceptance.

Owner · MEP delivery team

Question: Where are inspections failing, and what will it cost?

77.6%of failed inspections relate to one installation package1,427 of 1,839 failures / 12,347 completed checks

Completed inspection results

Passed checks10,50885.1%

Plant installation failures1,42711.6%

Other package failures4123.3%

£6,475 average remedial cost per installation. A package failure rate needs its own total checks; root cause is not established.

1,123 records await sign-off (may overlap failures); 8,063 installations planned.

SourcesInspections and sign-offs
CheckCompare work packages
FindingInstallation failures

Next action / owner

Installation defects

Quality lead: compare the 1,427 failures in the plant installation package with the specification and inspection evidence. Review corrective work before releasing the next package.

Owner · Quality lead

Understand. Organise. Question. Deliver.

Get the whole picture.

BuildPrompt reads your documents, registers and systems, links the records that belong together and runs agreed checks across all of them. Each answer keeps its source.

Explore the platform

From your data to a useful decision

BuildPrompt

Make your information usable.

Documents, systems and public context, understood together.

Documents

Databases

Spreadsheets

Images

Drawings

Public data

Information you can useExtracted with its context

Evidence kept with itA trace back to the source

BuildPromptUnderstand your data

Your outcomeLess time finding information. More of the picture in view.

See connections you could not see before.

Discover the structure and relationships across separate records.

Your existing systems

Discover structureGroups & shared references

Link relationshipsPeople · work · obligations

Source recordsFacts with their context

Connected evidenceWhat supports each finding

A knowledge graph connects information across the systems it lives in.

Knowledge graphConnected understanding

Your outcomeOne connected understanding of the work, with evidence attached.

Turn the question into a repeatable workflow.

Rows are sources. Columns are prompts. Each cell is a typed answer with its citation. Registers combine rows that share an anchor field, such as an asset ID.

Your objectiveThe work to improve

An evidenced answerFinding · decision · next action

Evaluation framework built inTest the approach. Surface disagreements. Keep review.

Use relevant data→Run agreed checks→Review the result

Works with leading AI models, including custom and fine-tuned models.

PromptStackYour augmented workflow

Your outcomeAn answer your team can inspect and a clear action to take.

Put the outcome where your team works.

Secure deployment that fits your systems and responsibilities.

Your tenant or secure cloudDeployment agreed with your team

Your controlsAccess · security · governance

A useful outcomeTime · cost · quality · risk

Connected to your existing systems

Reviewed findingsClear ownershipAccountable next actions

Sovereignty first · Crown Commercial Service Supplier · ISO 27001 · Cyber Essentials Plus

Secure deliveryYour environment

Your outcomeA decision with its evidence, owner and next action.

Clarity across your portfolio

See risks and opportunities across your portfolio.

Compare records across projects to reveal repeated charges, defect clusters and acceptance blockers.

Choose a view

See how the platform works →

Portfolio analysisCommercial obligations

Question: Which charges may sit with someone else?

£164,121of plant charges this quarter where the lease puts shared plant with the ownerRiverside, Willow and Brookfield · clause 4.2 · recovery not confirmed

The quarterly allocation at each siteGBP / quarter

Brookfield£63,252

Riverside£55,041

Willow£45,828

A flagged charge is not a confirmed saving.

SourcesLeases and charges
CheckCheck who is responsible
FindingLease allocation to review

Next action / owner

£63,252Brookfield firstQuarterly charges for review

Plant charge

Hold the next plant payment at each site until the lease and service-charge schedule are checked.

Owner · Estate commercial lead

Question: Which assets need a decision across the portfolio?

7 / 8sample assets need an evidenced decision

Linked portfolio recordssample assets

Need attention7

Aligned records1

Review the obligation, equipment discrepancy and missing evidence separately.

SourcesLinked project records
CheckCheck each obligation
FindingCertificate missing

Next action / owner

Test certificate

Request the signed commissioning certificate and check it against the equipment register before the assurance reviewer decides acceptance.

Owner · Assurance reviewer

Measurable outcomes

Save time and money.
Improve the work that follows.

Release time for higher-value work, identify cost opportunities and give your team a clearer view of what needs attention.

TimeIllustrative data01 / 06

Free the team to act on the result.

Measure the effort needed to reach a reviewed decision, including the work that remains with your team.

Illustrative planning example

Baseline effort20 hours

With assisted review4 hours

16 person-hours released per workflow

Assumed effort per workflow. Person-hours already include everyone involved.

How this is measured

MeasurePerson-hours per completed workflowHours released = baseline person-hours − assisted person-hours

Baseline

Add up the effort of everyone involved in the same review scope.

Track with BuildPrompt

Include preparation, exception handling and human approval.

CostIllustrative data02 / 06

Find the opportunity to reduce workflow cost.

Compare the value of effort released with the cost of running and introducing the workflow.

Illustrative planning example

Baseline annual cost£144,000

Including review, run and setup£36,800

£107,200 estimated first-year net value

120 workflows/year · £60/hour · £25/run · £5,000 setup. These are assumed inputs.

How this is measured

MeasureEstimated first-year net valueNet value = (hours released × hourly cost − run cost) × volume − setup cost

Baseline

Use a loaded hourly cost and an agreed annual workflow volume.

Track with BuildPrompt

Deduct run costs, implementation costs and residual review effort.

ReworkIllustrative data03 / 06

Spot the repeat mistake before it returns.

Link repeat issues to packages, causes and corrective actions so teams can change what happens next.

Illustrative measurement example

10%24 of 240 reviewed items

Items with repeat issues · 24Other reviewed items · 216

24 items with a repeat issue out of 240 reviewed items. Use the same definition and scope when comparing periods.

How this is measured

MeasureRepeat issue rate within a defined review scopeRepeat issue rate = items with a repeat issue ÷ reviewed items

Baseline

Agree what qualifies as a repeat issue and use comparable item counts.

Track with BuildPrompt

Track the cause, corrective action and resolution effort.

QualityIllustrative data04 / 06

See what passes the first review.

Separate first-pass acceptance from acceptance achieved after issues have been resolved.

Illustrative measurement example

90%864 of 960 first-reviewed items

Accepted first time · 864Returned on first review · 96

864 accepted on first review out of 960 first-reviewed items. Later acceptance does not change the first-pass result.

How this is measured

MeasureFirst-pass acceptance for a completed review cohortFirst-pass acceptance = accepted on first review ÷ items first-reviewed

Baseline

Define the criteria and reviewer before recording the initial outcome.

Track with BuildPrompt

Keep returned items distinct from those accepted first time.

Health & safetyIllustrative data05 / 06

Turn the finding into a verified action.

See which actions need attention, then review the evidence needed to close them.

Illustrative measurement example

40%4 of 10 open actions

Overdue and open · 4Open, within deadline · 6

4 overdue actions out of 10 open actions at the example review date. Closed actions are outside this denominator.

How this is measured

MeasureOverdue open actions at a stated review dateOverdue share = overdue open actions ÷ all open actions

Baseline

Record each action’s deadline, owner and current state.

Track with BuildPrompt

An action is overdue only when its due date has passed and it remains open.

VisibilityIllustrative data06 / 06

Know what supports the decision.

Distinguish requirements with linked evidence from those waiting for evidence and those accepted by a reviewer.

Illustrative measurement example

70%14 of 20 requirements

Linked evidence · 14Awaiting evidence · 6

14 requirements with linked evidence out of 20 in scope. Evidence presence does not establish acceptance.

How this is measured

MeasureRequirements with linked evidenceEvidence coverage = requirements with linked evidence ÷ requirements in scope

Baseline

Agree the requirements in scope and the evidence each needs.

Track with BuildPrompt

Track evidence presence, checks and human acceptance separately.

Customer results

Proven in practice.

How teams use BuildPrompt across handover, quality and safety. Explore the reported results and their context.

HS2

Digital Handover and Assurance

Reported client outcome

Before: Two weeks
With BuildPrompt: 35 seconds

Contractor assurance review time reported for the engagement.

37,983 requirement objects across 34 contracts

Read the case study

A major rail joint venture

Quality intelligence

Reported client outcome

Before: Three days
With BuildPrompt: under two minutes

Quality review time reported for the engagement.

30,000+ quality records connected

Read the case study

A leading UK airport

Safety intelligence

Reported client outcome

Before: Five hours
With BuildPrompt: 20 seconds

Safety record review time reported for the engagement.

£175k estimated annual saving · 100k+ records connected

Read the case study

Digital Construction Awards 2025 · WinnerBest Use of AI

Automating Digital Handover · BuildPrompt and HS2

TechFest Awards 2025 · WinnerBest Use of Technology: Artificial Intelligence

AI to automate digital handover · BuildPrompt

The Library

See what the headline misses.

The figures behind the housing story.

Explore the Library

Loading industry reports...

Built around your outcomes

Make your next decision easier to evidence.

Start with one workflow on your own data. We agree the baseline with your team, run it and measure the result.

Discuss your data

Make complex data your asset.

Why BuildPrompt.

See the issue.Trust the answer.

Clear the path to sign-off.

Outstanding work

Get the whole picture.

Make your information usable.

See risks and opportunities across your portfolio.

Plant charge

Save time and money.Improve the work that follows.

Free the team to act on the result.

AI with security at its heart.

Proven in practice.

See what the headline misses.

Make your next decision easier to evidence.

Make complex
data your asset.

See the issue.
Trust the answer.

Save time and money.
Improve the work that follows.