AI review.
On your terms.

Premai helps aerospace experts review project documents, locate evidence and identify gaps inside their own environment.

Request a demo Follow the workflow

Your documents. Your environment.

Agree what the review should cover and which project materials form its basis.

Read each finding alongside its supporting evidence, source locations and limitations.

Use professional expertise to confirm the findings and decide what needs attention.

An aerospace context.

Engineering decisions need a clear documentary basis.

Aircraft systems

Avionics

Engineering documents

A review you can follow.

From scope to follow-up

Every finding needs a basis.

A review starts with a clear question and ends with a result that a domain expert can examine.

Premai brings supporting passages, open questions and limitations into view. Your team decides whether the evidence is sufficient and what to do next.

Explore sample findings

Define the scope

Start with the project context, the review objectives and the questions your team needs to answer. Set clear boundaries for this review.

What your team establishes: The questions to assess, the material in scope and the limits of the review.
Why it matters: A finding only has meaning within the scope that produced it.

Prepare the documents

Bring together the project plans and supporting material for the agreed scope. Confirm which document versions form the basis of the review.

What your team establishes: A defined set of project materials with known versions and any missing inputs made explicit.
Why it matters: Reference guidance helps interpret an expectation. Project evidence shows how the project addresses it.

Examine the evidence

Locate passages that address the review questions. Read the supporting text in context and retain its document and source location.

What the review provides: Evidence-linked findings that a reviewer can trace to the project material.
What still needs judgment: A supporting passage may be incomplete. A missing passage does not prove that the information is absent from the entire document.

See an evidence example

Understand the findings

Distinguish supported statements from documented gaps and questions that need more evidence. Read the reasoning and limitations alongside each finding.

What the review provides: A clear basis for deciding which findings to verify and which questions to investigate.
What remains separate: Insufficient evidence is an open question. A gap is a deficiency supported by the available material.

Compare sample findings

Apply expert judgment

Qualified reviewers check the source material, assess the limits of each finding and consider the project context before deciding the next action.

What your team decides: Whether to accept the basis, request further evidence or investigate a possible deficiency.
Who remains responsible: The professional reviewer retains the final judgment. A preliminary AI assessment is not a certification conclusion.

Share and revisit

Share a review report with the evidence, source locations and limitations needed for follow-up. Start a new review when the project material changes.

What your team takes forward: A traceable account of the review and the questions that still need attention.
How the work continues: Review updated material in its own context. Earlier findings remain tied to the material used at the time.

See the evidence.

Explore a preliminary review

Workflow preview Review stages

Review responsibility

Evidence supported

The sample document names a role responsible for approval.

“The verification lead approves the plan before the baseline is released.”

Fictional development plan · §3.2

Reviewer’s next action: Confirm that the named role and approval record meet the project’s actual criteria.

Configuration control

Gap identified

The sample document contains an unresolved baseline reference.

“Applicable baseline: to be defined.”

Fictional verification plan · §2.1

Reviewer’s next action: Identify the applicable baseline and record a controlled reference.

Independent verification

Further evidence needed

The evidence available in this example does not establish the required separation of responsibilities.

No qualifying project evidence in this example.

Scope limitation · selected documents only

Reviewer’s next action: Request the responsibility matrix and verify the applicable independence requirement.

These examples provide a simplified view of the workflow. Depending on the complexity of the project and its technical documents, additional tools and review subtasks may be needed.

Bring AI to
your documents.

A local deployment brings preliminary review to the environment your team controls.

Keep sensitive material local: In a local deployment, your team can review project documents without sending them to a public cloud AI service.
Make the basis visible: Keep supporting evidence, source locations and limitations alongside the findings so another reviewer can examine them.
Professional responsibility: Premai supports preliminary review. Qualified people verify its findings and retain the final judgment.

Start with one project.

Explore a focused pilot around your review objectives, project documents and the environment your team controls.

Request a demo