Proof · Client case 01

273 hours of downtime anticipated, from a log the plant was already collecting.

Aerospace & defence supplier · production line, 4 machines · regulated environment. No new sensor, no intervention on the machines, and no data preparation asked of the client.

Share of the line’s downtimeSIX MONTHS · FOUR MACHINES
45%ANTICIPATEDHOURS SIGNALLED IN ADVANCE273 hout of the line’s total downtime hoursover the same six months.Tested against a period the model had never seen.

A backtest, not a projection. The model was calibrated on an earlier period and then scored against six months it had never been shown. How we validate →

The question

“Does a serious stop start within the next hour?

One question, asked of one line, against data the plant had been writing to disk for years.

Input
The run/stop event log alone. No sensors, no process data, nothing added to the machines.
Signal
Recent micro-stop activity — how many, how long, and whether they came in bursts or evenly spread.
Output
One score per machine every 10 minutes, against a threshold that adapts to that machine.
Causal
Only the past is ever used, so the model that was backtested is the model that deploys.
What the line actually got

Two machines paid off. Two did not.

The gain is concentrated. V4 and V2 carry it; on V1 and V3 the log held almost nothing the model could use. Rather than average that away, here is the split.

Where the 273 hours came fromSIX-MONTH BLIND BACKTEST · PER MACHINE
0100 h200 hV45.9 h217 h · 56%V237 min47 h · 50%V1~5 min6 h · 16%V3~6 min3 h · 4%
Paid offDid notLeft column: median warning time before the stop

The median warning time matters as much as the hours. On V4 it is 5.9 hours — a shift’s notice. On V2, 37 minutes: enough to finish a part and stop cleanly, not enough to plan. On V1 and V3, around five minutes, which is not a warning at all. The per-machine economics →

Over twelve months

What survives the false alerts.

Alerts that precede nothing cost real time to check. That cost is deducted below rather than left out, which is why we publish two numbers instead of one.

Gross signalled against net gainTWELVE-MONTH ROLLING VALIDATION
SIGNALLED IN ADVANCE446 h− time spent checking alerts that preceded nothingNET GAIN+187 h32% of the line’s downtime hours · 16 major stops signalled
Alert load
2 to 4 alerts per machine per week. Roughly one in six precedes a serious stop within the hour.
Why publish both
The gross figure flatters the model. The net figure is the one a maintenance manager can defend in a budget meeting.
What made it possible

Nothing was installed. That is the point.

The plant had already spent years instrumenting. The event log existed, it was complete, and until this ran it had never been used to decide anything.

No new sensor

Not one. The deployment added no hardware and required no intervention on the line.

No client man-days

No data preparation was asked of the client’s team, and no engineering time was booked against it.

Regulated environment

Micro-stop counts only — no named operator data, so the client’s GDPR scope was unchanged.

Full deployment requirements →

Next step

Name one line — we read the log you already have.

Within a week we tell you whether it carries a precursor, before you commit to anything.

Request a demo

We use this only to reply to you. No mailing list, no resale.