A photograph in. A code-cited verdict out.

Thirteen checks, and we will show you all of them

Most vendors describe their checks in adjectives. Here is the actual list, with the severity we assign and the clause each one answers to. The severity is authored in code, not left to the model, which is what makes two audits of the same unit comparable, and what lets you argue with a grading decision instead of shrugging at it.

Check	Severity	What it catches	Reference
UNIT_MISSING_OR_DISCHARGED	CRITICAL	Absent, discharged, or gauge sitting in the recharge zone	IS 2190; NBC 2016 Part 4
ACCESS_BLOCKED	CRITICAL	Access fully blocked, or the unit obscured	IS 2190 cl. 4; NBC 2016 Part 4
HOSE_REEL_UNUSABLE	CRITICAL	Hose missing or severed, cabinet will not open	NBC 2016 Part 4
GAUGE_OUT_OF_RANGE	MAJOR	Needle outside the green band, or an unreadable gauge face	IS 2190
SEAL_OR_PIN_COMPROMISED	MAJOR	Pin missing or unseated, tamper seal broken	IS 2190
REFILL_OR_EXPIRY_OVERDUE	MAJOR	Refill or expiry date passed	IS 2190 cl. 7
INSPECTION_TAG_MISSING	MAJOR	Tag absent, illegible, unsigned or stale	IS 2190; MFPLSM Rules 2009
PHYSICAL_DAMAGE_OR_CORROSION	MAJOR	Corrosion, dents, damaged hose, horn or nozzle	IS 2190
MOUNTING_HEIGHT_WRONG	MAJOR	Insecure, or top above ~1.5 m for a hand-portable unit	IS 2190 cl. 4
WRONG_CLASS_FOR_HAZARD	MAJOR	e.g. a water-based unit at an energised electrical hazard	IS 2190 cl. 3; NBC 2016 Part 4
ISI_MARK_MISSING	MINOR	ISI / BIS mark absent, painted over or illegible	IS 15683; BIS certification
CABINET_DEFECT	MINOR	Glass, latch or break-glass defects; equipment still usable	NBC 2016 Part 4
SIGNAGE_MISSING	MINOR	No location marking where the unit is not plainly visible	NBC 2016 Part 4

The severity boundary is a judgement, and we state it so it can be argued with. Critical means the equipment cannot be relied on to work, or cannot be reached. Major means a defect that defeats certification or maintenance requirements. Minor means marking, documentation or housekeeping.

The verdict itself: pass, fail or re-inspect, is derived in code from those severities and stored alongside them. So the stored result is reproducible from the stored evidence: you can audit the audit. And it looks for the ISI mark, not UL or FM. An engine tuned for American equipment will cheerfully report that your extinguisher has no UL listing, which is technically true and completely useless to you.

What it covers, and what it does not

Stated plainly, because the fastest way to lose your trust is to let you discover a limit after you have paid for it.

• Portable fire extinguishers and hose reels: the highest-count, most repetitive equipment in any premises, and the bulk of routine fire-compliance work.
• Thirteen checks against IS 2190, IS 15683 and NBC 2016 Part 4, with the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Rules 2009 overlay on inspection tagging.
• An append-only record of every audit with the evidence photograph, the cited clause, the derived verdict and the timestamp.
• An operator alert the moment a critical finding is raised, before the technician has left the floor.

• No other equipment classes. Sprinklers, detectors, alarm panels, pumps, risers, fire doors, emergency lighting and exit signage are not judged by this build. The engine assumes what it is looking at is an extinguisher or a hose reel; it does not classify equipment. (Our US build covers nine classes; this one covers one implicit class, deliberately, because that is what is finished.)
• It is not a Form B certificate, and it is not any other statutory certification. Every response is marked advisory.
• It does not replace your fire engineer. A qualified person reviews the findings and signs off. The engine removes the paperwork between the walk and the signature, not the professional accountability.

The technical basis is national: IS 2190, IS 15683 and NBC 2016 Part 4 apply across India. What is specific to Maharashtra is the statutory overlay: the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act 2006 and Rules 2009, and the authority context of the Chief Fire Officer of the municipal corporation. MCGM for Brihanmumbai. We have built and tested it against that context first. Taking it to another state is a change to the statutory overlay, not a rebuild of the engine.

The payback math, on your numbers

Let us be precise about what this does and does not replace. It does not remove your technician, and it does not remove the qualified person who signs off. What it removes is the report production between them: transcribing findings, finding the right clause, grading each one, and formatting it for review.

The only figure we assume below is the ~15 minutes it takes to read and approve a drafted, clause-cited verdict. The rest is yours: find your own write-up time on the left, and swap in your own monthly volume.

If your write-up takes today…	You get back, per report	Per 40 reports filed
1 hour	~45 minutes	~30 hours
2 hours	~1¾ hours	~70 hours
3 hours	~2¾ hours	~110 hours

We stop at hours on purpose. What an hour of your capacity is worth, absorbed internally or rebilled, is your figure, not ours. Bring it to the call with your real write-up time and volume, and we will run the payback on your actual numbers instead of our assumptions.

The hour count is the easy part to model. The reason a firm keeps it is usually the other half: every finding cites the clause it fails and its severity is fixed in code, so the same photograph produces the same grade in July as it did in January: across technicians, premises and half-years. Hand grading drifts, and drift is what a challenge from the fire authority, an insurer query or a disputed finding attacks first.

When that challenge comes, the answer is a record rather than a recollection: an append-only log, the evidence photograph retained against the finding, the clause quoted, the timestamp, and the name of the qualified person who approved it. The stored verdict is reproducible from the stored evidence, you can audit the audit.

Three ways to run it

Pricing below is specific to the AI Field Auditor only, other systems are scoped separately.

Start on the monthly. It is the smallest commitment that still puts the engine on your own premises and your own equipment, it is an operating expense rather than a capital sanction, and there is no infrastructure of yours to maintain. Owning it outright is what you graduate into once the throughput is proven on your own work.

Engagement	Best for	Investment
Launch Pilot	Prove it on your own premises and your own jurisdiction before committing to anything monthly. One-time offer per business.	from ₹1,50,000 one-time
Managed Subscription most firms start here	We host, run and keep improving it, an operating expense instead of a capital sanction, and no server of your own to run.	Starter ₹34,999 / month 500 audits / month Pro ₹69,999 / month 1,000 audits / month
Build & Own It	Own it outright on your own infrastructure, far cheaper over its life, the records never leave your estate, and payable across build milestones rather than as a single cheque.	₹15,00,000 one-time special introductory offer, ₹24,00,000 ≈ 21 months of the Pro monthly, then yours

Put the outright figure in proportion before it frightens anybody. At ₹69,999 a month, a managed client's cumulative spend passes ₹15,00,000 at about 21 months. So owning it is roughly under two years of what you would be paying anyway, except that at the end of it the engine is yours, on your own infrastructure, with nothing further to pay. A firm that inspects for many years never stops paying on the monthly; that, and not the sticker, is the argument for owning it.

And it is not a single cheque. Build & Own It is payable across build milestones: scoping, configuration against your equipment classes and premises naming, and handover, so the spend tracks delivered work rather than landing up front. One audit is one photograph judged; a submission rejected before it is judged costs you nothing and does not count.

In Maharashtra, certification is the business of a Licensed Agency, licensed by the Director of Maharashtra Fire Services, and the signing engineer's standing comes from qualification. That is not an obstacle to this engine; it is the shape of it. The engine is advisory by architecture and always requires a qualified sign-off, which means it is built to sit under your licence, not against it: white-labelled output, your letterhead, your premises naming, your engineer's approval on the record, and on an owned deployment the evidence never leaves your estate.

If that is your position, say so on the call, a per-report wholesale arrangement is usually a better fit than either subscription tier, and we scope it against your volume and premises mix.

Form B, where this is going next

To be unambiguous: this is roadmap, not a feature you would be buying today. The engine currently produces advisory screening, and every response says so.

But it is worth telling you where the design is headed, because it is the reason we built the Indian engine to derive its verdict in code rather than accept whatever a model returned. Under the Maharashtra Act, fire safety compliance is evidenced through Form B, prepared half-yearly. January and July. That work is largely done out of files and spreadsheets.

A system that accumulates a premises' audits across the half-year and assembles the supporting evidence pack for that period is solving a real, dated, recurring obligation rather than offering a nicer inspection form. That is the next phase. It needs a signature to mean something first, which is why the verdict is now reproducible from the stored evidence, and why sign-off was deliberately not built until that was true.

If the Form B cycle is the problem you actually want solved, tell us on the call. It moves up the queue when a real premises is waiting for it, and we would rather build it against your half-year than our assumptions.

Honestly, so you can trust it