Direct answers from the canonical product record.

A CEA project decision-support system that connects requirements, source-linked supplier evidence, assumptions, design cases, reviews and decisions.

The first workflow supports project definition, configuration comparison, supplier selection and review of material changes before commitment.

CEA project developers, sponsors and owner’s representatives preparing or reviewing a material project decision.

The canonical Product Status page lists observable behaviour, implementation status, research status, availability, limitations and next validation for each of four capability groups.

No. The current core supports project evidence and decisions, not live climate, irrigation or equipment control.

Yes. Selected professional services are separately scoped and do not automatically include Platform access.

A statement or value retained with the document, wording, location, version and applicable operating conditions from which it came.

It identifies whether a value is measured, client-provided, supplier-declared, literature-derived, calculated, expert-estimated, assumed or unknown.

A conditional comparison produced from explicit assumptions, ranges, model versions and validity conditions.

Reproducibility means the same approved inputs and model version produce the same result; biological, commercial and operating inputs can remain uncertain.

As explicit assumptions, ranges, disputed inputs, unknowns, validity limits and review conditions rather than silently completed facts.

Implemented dependency records and the current development track identify comparisons, design cases, decisions and downstream requirements that may need renewed review.

Bounded tasks such as document classification, candidate extraction, terminology mapping, retrieval and draft comparison or clarification text.

AI does not own source authority, supplier warranties, agronomic or engineering approval, commercial selection, project acceptance or live greenhouse control.

The organisation designates the agronomic, engineering, supplier, commercial and project authorities responsible within their own scope.

Implementation reports what exists and can be used. Research status reports whether a question, protocol, baseline, internal evaluation, external evaluation or published result exists.

No public external Platform-validation result is currently published unless a separately dated record states otherwise.

The Research and Technology pages define comparators, evaluation material, metrics, review conditions, versions and limitations. Published results must identify their scope.

No. The public website does not create a Platform account.

A defined organisation, decision objective, permitted data, authorised users, responsible reviewers, success criteria, support, retention, export and deletion conditions.

High-level organisational, project, decision or collaboration context only. Do not submit confidential files, credentials, detailed financial models or regulated data.

Yes, through a defined supplier, engineering or integration collaboration route on the Partners page.

Yes, where a research question, hypothesis, comparator, metrics, review roles and publication boundary can be defined.

On the Security & Data, Privacy and Product Status pages, which own those records.