A project manager receives a field message: “The cabinet drawing and the appliance sheet do not match. Please advise.” Rewriting it in formal language leaves the recipient with the same research to do. A useful AI workflow should gather the conflicting references, check whether the question has already been answered, and draft the specific decision the team needs.

Procore’s current RFI guidance separates background information, the question, replies, and an official response. It also distinguishes a draft from an open request. Datum’s interpretation is that AI can help most with the preparation between a field observation and a question ready for the responsible person to answer. This is a proposed workflow based on published guidance, not a new product announcement.

Show the conflict without resolving it by guesswork

Consider a hypothetical remodel where a cabinet shop drawing shows one appliance opening and the selected appliance’s installation sheet shows another. The assistant should identify the project, room, appliance model, drawing revision, and exact locations of the conflicting information. It should attach readable excerpts while keeping links to the complete documents.

A useful draft question would ask the responsible designer to confirm the required opening and identify which drawing or selection needs revision. The assistant should preserve the dimensions and units as written. It should flag any unreadable dimension for a person to check before the request goes out. It must not choose a dimension because one document looks newer or the appliance model sounds familiar.

If a field measurement is available, label who recorded it and when. Keep that observation separate from the drawing requirement. A photograph may help explain the location, but the assistant should not invent a measured clearance from an unscaled image.

Check for an existing answer before drafting another request

Give the assistant the current RFI log and relevant accepted responses alongside the documents. Ask it to return one of three proposed outcomes: an existing answer with a source link, a draft question for review, or a missing-evidence list. A search that finds nothing should report what it searched and what it could not access.

An existing reply needs a status check. Procore distinguishes replies from the response designated as official. In your own workflow, confirm who accepts the answer and whether it covers the same project, location, and revision. Similar wording on another job does not settle this job’s question.

Anthropic’s April guidance on trustworthy agents describes the need to distinguish gaps an agent can research from questions of intent that require human clarification. Applied here, the assistant can search for a referenced sheet. Choosing a different appliance or accepting a design change belongs to the people responsible for that decision.

Give the reviewer a compact preparation sheet

  • Issue: the location and work affected, with a concise description of the ambiguity.
  • Evidence: both references, their revisions, and the exact conflicting details.
  • Prior answer check: relevant RFI IDs and accepted responses, or the limits of the search.
  • Decision requested: a direct question with any contractor suggestion clearly marked as a proposal.
  • Timing: the affected activity and the date by which the project manager says an answer is needed.
  • Review: the person who checks the evidence, chooses the recipient, and authorizes the request.

Treat cost and schedule effects separately from urgency. Procore’s form supports both known impacts and undetermined impacts. A request needed before cabinet release does not establish the number of delay days or a dollar amount. Keep those fields unconfirmed until the responsible person supplies evidence.

During the pilot, produce this preparation sheet outside the live RFI system. Even saving a draft can have workflow effects: Procore documents email behavior tied to project settings. Verify the actual permissions and notifications before connecting AI to record creation. The project manager should review the question and distribution before it reaches the design team.

Measure the work needed to make the question answerable

Choose a small set of resolved RFIs and hide their final responses from the assistant. Have the project manager mark the necessary references and intended question first. Include a case with an answer already on file, a superseded drawing, an unreadable dimension, and a field observation that conflicts with the documents.

Record missing references, unnecessary new requests, unsupported design decisions, and reviewer correction time. Compare the review time with preparing the same request manually. A suggested pilot requirement is zero invented dimensions or accepted design decisions in the practice set; it is a proposed standard, not a reported performance result.

For a live trial, also track whether the recipient has to ask for basic missing information before answering. That gives the team a practical result to improve: fewer exchanges spent finding the sheet, locating the conflict, or figuring out what decision was requested.

Sources Read

Next step, if this note maps to a problem on your desk: book a conversation with Adam. Thirty minutes, weekday evenings, Eastern time.

Related Field Notes