| What you bring | High-level site, crop, market, utility, budget, delivery and decision-owner context that may be shared at the qualification stage. | High-level site, utility, crop, system, operating, equipment and decision-owner context that may be shared at qualification. | A high-level operating context, decision question, permitted evidence and responsible team; confidential records remain off the public intake route. | A high-level opportunity, intended role, permitted evidence, geography and responsible technical or commercial contacts. | High-level research objective, permitted evidence, institutional role, evaluation criteria and publication or confidentiality considerations. |
|---|
| What the Platform would do | The Platform structures project objective, site and utility constraints, crop and market assumptions, alternative systems, supplier evidence, deterministic scenarios, risks, dependencies, decisions, approvals and delivery outputs under qualified review. | The Platform preserves source-aware requirements, crop and system alternatives, supplier comparison, deterministic scenarios and review records for a controlled greenhouse project workflow. | Depending on data and selected product scope, the Platform can organise current configuration, protocol evidence, capacity and resource assumptions, issue history, alternatives, deterministic impact scenarios and controlled decisions. The Operations Feedback Layer remains roadmap or scoped validation unless specifically agreed. | The Platform can organise source-aware requirements, supplier specifications, interfaces, exclusions, clarification questions and decision records within a selected project or private-beta scope. | The Platform supports CEA project data models, supplier-document intelligence, agronomic retrieval, scenario reliability, model evaluation and human-in-the-loop decision studies within an agreed scope. |
|---|
| Crop Urbanis role | Frame the project definition, agronomic reasoning, controlled inputs and coordination scope that may be agreed. | Frame agronomic and project questions, controlled inputs, comparisons and agreed coordination scope. | Discuss a bounded agronomic, protocol, training or improvement scope that may be agreed with the responsible operating team. | Frame the collaboration boundary, project information, decision map and any agreed coordination role. | Define the product and evidence boundary, provide the relevant workflow and maintain traceability through the agreed evaluation process. |
|---|
| Partner role | Qualified parties retain engineering, construction, installation, safety, regulatory, supplier and commissioning responsibilities within their scopes. | Qualified parties validate utility, structural, electrical, HVAC, regulatory, equipment and installation matters within their scopes. | The operating team and qualified specialists retain responsibility for site operation, maintenance, safety, compliance and any specialist evidence. | Each supplier, engineering, integration, research or customer party retains its own technical, commercial, legal and disclosure responsibilities. | Research organisations and qualified specialists retain methodological, institutional, publication, professional and regulatory responsibilities within their scopes. |
|---|
| What you leave with | An agreed project-definition and delivery-pack scope with explicit assumptions and partner boundaries. | A structured decision and delivery scope that identifies what Crop Urbanis, the customer and specialist partners each own. | A practical optimisation or expansion scope with explicit assumptions, review and decision boundaries. | A collaboration scope, decision map and route for qualified technical and commercial validation. | An agreed validation or research record with evidence, review, publication and responsibility conditions stated explicitly. |
|---|
