- Six layers (added Evidence between Observation and Finding): 1. Reality 2. Observation 3. Evidence (linked observations with context) 4. Finding 5. Decision 6. Business Impact - Decision Object restructured: 1. Decision — what should user decide? 2. Why — why system recommends this 3. Evidence — what observations support this 4. Confidence — how certain (3 dimensions) 5. Consequence — what if nothing done 6. Action — next step 7. Business Impact — economic/operational meaning - Confidence Model (3 dimensions): - Observation Confidence: how certain is detection? - Evidence Strength: how strongly supported? - Recommendation Confidence: how certain is recommendation? - Explainability Principle: - Every Decision Card must be explorable - User can click: Decision → Finding → Evidence → Observations → Reality - Competitive advantage: traceability to source material - Business Impact Model (4 dimensions): - Risk, Cost, Time, Opportunity - Three validation scenarios: 1. Road Crack — simple, common 2. Damaged Facade — complex, critical 3. Broken Road Sign — simple, regulatory - Pass criteria: Same Decision Object works for all three Rationale: Decision Intelligence, not BI. Evidence-backed decisions are the core product. Explainability is competitive advantage. Validation against real scenarios before freezing.
7.4 KiB
DECISION MODEL v1.0
The Core Product of Landvex
| Version | 1.0 |
| Status | DRAFT |
| Scope | All Landvex decisions, dashboards, reports, APIs |
The Six Layers
Layer 1: Reality
(sensors, mobile, video, GIS, drones)
↓
Layer 2: Observation
("crack detected", "road surface degraded")
↓
Layer 3: Evidence
(linked observations with context)
↓
Layer 4: Finding
("area has deteriorated since last inspection")
↓
Layer 5: Decision
("prioritize inspection within 14 days")
↓
Layer 6: Business Impact
("risk reduced", "cost avoided", "revenue created")
Layer 1: Reality
Input sources:
- Mobile phones (quiXzoom)
- Drones
- Fixed cameras
- Sensors
- GIS data
- Satellite imagery
Principle: Reality is the only source of truth.
Layer 2: Observation
Definition: A single recorded fact from reality.
Example:
Observation:
- Type: "crack"
- Location: [lat, lng]
- Timestamp: 2026-07-02T10:00:00Z
- Source: quiXzoom mobile
- Media: [photo_url, video_url]
- Observation Confidence: 0.94
Layer 3: Evidence
Definition: Linked observations with context, forming a body of proof.
Example:
Evidence:
- Description: "Multiple cracks observed in Sector 7"
- Observations: [observation_1, observation_2, observation_3]
- Evidence Strength: 0.91
- Consistency: "All observations confirm degradation"
- Time Span: "2026-06-15 to 2026-07-02"
Layer 4: Finding
Definition: A pattern or conclusion derived from evidence.
Example:
Finding:
- Description: "Road surface has degraded 15% since last inspection"
- Area: "Nacka Municipality, Sector 7"
- Evidence: [evidence_1, evidence_2]
- Finding Confidence: 0.87
- Trend: "deteriorating"
Layer 5: Decision
Definition: An evidence-backed recommended action.
Decision Object
Every decision must contain:
| # | Field | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Decision | What should the user decide? | "Prioritize inspection" |
| 2 | Why | Why does the system recommend this? | "Road surface degraded 15%" |
| 3 | Evidence | What observations support this? | [evidence_1, evidence_2] |
| 4 | Confidence | How certain is the model? | See Confidence Model below |
| 5 | Consequence | What happens if nothing is done? | "Risk of accident increases" |
| 6 | Action | What is the next step? | "Schedule inspection" |
| 7 | Business Impact | What does this mean economically/operationally? | See Business Impact Model below |
Confidence Model
| Dimension | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Observation Confidence | How certain is the detection? | "94% — clear visual evidence" |
| Evidence Strength | How strongly does evidence support the conclusion? | "91% — three consistent observations" |
| Recommendation Confidence | How certain is the recommendation? | "87% — historical data supports this action" |
Explainability
Every Decision Card must be explorable:
Decision
↓ (click)
Finding
↓ (click)
Evidence
↓ (click)
Observations
↓ (click)
Reality
The user must be able to click all the way back to source material.
Layer 6: Business Impact
Definition: The measurable effect of the decision on the business.
| Type | Metric | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Risk | Probability × Severity | "High — accident risk 12% → 3%" |
| Cost | Currency | "$50,000 in emergency repairs avoided" |
| Time | Duration | "Action required within 14 days" |
| Opportunity | Business value | "Plan maintenance with nearby works" |
Decision Card
Visual representation:
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Area Score: 87 │
│ ▼ │
│ │
│ 3 Important Decisions │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ ⚠️ Road surface degraded │ │
│ │ Confidence: 87% │ │
│ │ Priority: High │ │
│ │ Recommend: Inspect in 14d │ │
│ │ If ignored: Safety risk ↑ │ │
│ │ Next step: Schedule now │ │
│ │ Evidence: 12 observations │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Map │
│ │
│ Evidence │
│ │
│ History │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
Verification
For every decision:
- Decision — what should the user decide?
- Why — why does the system recommend this?
- Evidence — what observations support this?
- Confidence — how certain is the model? (observation, evidence, recommendation)
- Consequence — what happens if nothing is done?
- Action — what is the next step?
- Business Impact — what does this mean economically/operationally?
- Explainability — can the user click back to source material?
Validation Scenarios
Before freezing Decision Model v1.0, validate against three real scenarios:
Scenario 1: Road Crack
| Layer | Example |
|---|---|
| Reality | Mobile photo of road crack |
| Observation | "Crack detected, 15cm width" |
| Evidence | 3 observations of cracks in same area |
| Finding | "Road surface degraded 15% since last inspection" |
| Decision | "Prioritize inspection within 14 days" |
| Business Impact | Risk: High, Cost: $50k avoided, Time: 14 days, Opportunity: Plan with nearby works |
Scenario 2: Damaged Facade
| Layer | Example |
|---|---|
| Reality | Drone video of building facade |
| Observation | "Facade panel loose, 30cm displacement" |
| Evidence | 2 observations + weather data |
| Finding | "Facade integrity compromised, risk of falling debris" |
| Decision | "Immediate safety inspection required" |
| Business Impact | Risk: Critical, Cost: $200k liability, Time: 24 hours, Opportunity: Prevent injury |
Scenario 3: Broken Road Sign
| Layer | Example |
|---|---|
| Reality | Mobile photo of damaged sign |
| Observation | "Stop sign damaged, 50% visibility" |
| Evidence | 1 observation + traffic data |
| Finding | "Traffic control compromised at intersection" |
| Decision | "Replace sign within 48 hours" |
| Business Impact | Risk: Medium, Cost: $5k fine avoided, Time: 48 hours, Opportunity: Standard replacement |
Pass criteria: Same Decision Object works for all three without modification.
Relationship to Dashboard
Dashboard is not: 120 widgets Dashboard is: Decision Card visualization
Area Score
↓
Top 3 Decisions
↓
Map
↓
Evidence
↓
History
ändringshistoria
| Version | Datum | Beskrivning |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-07-02 | Initial decision model with six layers, evidence-backed decisions, explainability, confidence model, validation scenarios |
STATUS
DRAFT — Awaiting validation against three scenarios