GridAurex
Organize anomaly candidates from aerial inspection footage for qualified review, with asset-linked evidence and scoped maintenance-system exports.
Capabilities
- Anomaly candidates from aerial inspection imagery
- Review queues with location and image evidence
- GIS asset context and scoped EAM or CMMS exports
From inspection footage to a reviewed finding
GridAurex organizes anomaly candidates from aerial footage into review queues and connects reviewed findings with maintenance systems. Define the asset types and defect categories before evaluating detections. Keep each finding linked to source evidence and location so qualified reviewers can decide what needs further inspection or action.
Inputs and outputs
- Inputs to agree
- Use representative footage with capture times, available location data and the operator's asset identifiers. Check resolution, camera movement and coverage against the proposed defect category.
- Outputs to review
- Agree how a review record distinguishes an anomaly candidate from a confirmed defect. Retain the source evidence, asset identity and review decision needed to support a maintenance record.
Integration and operating limits
Map asset IDs, locations, categories and review status to the GIS and EAM or CMMS records. Confirm media formats and integration interfaces with sample records. Define who approves a work order before field action.
Unclear footage or an uncertain asset match needs review or another capture. It does not establish clearance or justify automatic dispatch. Procurement requirements and flight authorization depend on the equipment, operator and mission; image-processing software alone does not establish them.
What to measure
- Missed findings and false alerts by defect category and capture conditions
- Findings with sufficient evidence and confirmed asset identity
- Review and export time, including rejected candidates and further inspections
Keep findings separate from repeat frames
These invented review records show an evidence check. They are not detections from GridAurex, a utility inspection or a safety assessment.
Scroll the table sideways to read every column.
| Evidence | Candidate description | Identity information | Expected review decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| F-01 | Surface anomaly candidate | Asset T-17, bracket A | Review the evidence for this candidate |
| F-02 | Same candidate in a later frame | Asset T-17, bracket A | Relate it to the same finding; do not count a second defect from the frame alone |
| F-03 | Surface anomaly candidate | Asset not confirmed | Resolve the asset identity before creating an asset-specific work order |
There are three evidence records here, but they do not establish three confirmed defects. F-01 and F-02 concern the same candidate; F-03 lacks a confirmed asset identity.
A qualified reviewer still needs to assess the images and any additional inspection evidence. An unclear image or uncertain asset match is not a clearance or an instruction to dispatch field work.
Define the measurement unit as a reviewed finding linked to its source evidence and asset, rather than a count of frames. A claimed reduction in false alerts would need a separate labeled evaluation set, including missed defects and capture conditions.
These are proposed review and counting rules. They do not establish that automatic deduplication, asset resolution or dispatch blocking has been implemented or tested.
Download the synthetic worksheet (JSON)Industry context
Explore the related workflows and other solutions for your industry.