The everyday problem
On any active job, the GC, project engineers and trades fire questions at each other all day: what's the service rating, which revision governs, does this change order move the schedule, can I see the trade estimate. Answering means someone stops work, opens the right folder, finds the current revision, and writes back — often hours or a day later. Industry research pegs the fully-loaded cost of a single RFI at roughly $1,080–$3,000 and a median turnaround near 10 days. Multiply that across a project and the drag is enormous.
What IntelMS did
The 2323 Arthur documentation — service details, the jurisdiction/code pack, open deficiencies and the restricted financials — was organized into a single project knowledge base. Anyone on the approved sender list can now email a question and get back a grounded, exactly-cited answer in minutes, drafted for a human to send. The answers below show the four behaviors that make the output trustworthy.
It cites
Every fact names its exact source.
It's revision-aware
Answers from the latest governing edition.
It escalates
Refuses to guess on compliance/safety.
It protects
Restricted financials stay GC-only.
Representative answers
These examples are representative and grounded in this project's profile, register, jurisdiction pack and access policy. On a live engagement, drawing- and spec-level answers cite the client's own uploaded sheets, details and spec sections.
Q1 · What's the main electrical service for this project?
Answer
400 A, 120/240 V, single-phase, overhead service, supplied by FortisBC (service OID 2587019).
Sources
Project profile — 2323 Arthur (Tenant & Project Profile); Project Register BA-0001.
Confidence
High — single sourced fact, directly stated in the project record.
Q2 · Which electrical code edition applies to permits pulled now?
Answer
The Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, 26th Edition (CSA C22.1:24), adopted in BC effective 2025-03-04 and enforced by Technical Safety BC. It applies to work permits applied for after that date.
Revision used
Latest — CSA C22.1:24 (supersedes the prior edition as of 2025-03-04).
Confidence
High · Revision-aware — an older edition would be the wrong basis and is flagged as superseded.
Q3 · Does the existing panel layout meet code — can you confirm compliance?
Answer
This requires a human / engineer / AHJ determination — IntelMS does not certify code compliance. The governing framework is CSA C22.1:24, enforced by Technical Safety BC; the record indicates the codes in force but does not contain a compliance sign-off.
Confidence
Low (by policy) — code-compliance is always escalated, never auto-answered.
Flags
⚠ Needs human review — compliance determination required from the EOR / AHJ.
Q4 · There's a flickering / brown-out issue when the geo units start — what do we know?
Answer
A documented open deficiency (Dec 2022) notes lights flicker / brown-out when the geothermal units energize. An engineer review suggested adding a sub-panel to offload the main. This is recorded as review-required; IntelMS reports the record but does not assert that any fix is implemented or approved.
Confidence
Medium — the deficiency and suggested direction are recorded, but resolution status is not.
Flags
⚠ Review-required — confirm whether the sub-panel was engineered / installed before relying on this.
Q5 · Can you send me the trade estimate? (asked by a non-allowlisted sender)
Answer
That document is restricted. Trade estimates and sub-invoices sit in the GC-only financial ring; access requires the GC's written approval. I can't release figures to a requester who isn't on the financial allowlist.
Confidence
High — access rule is explicit and fail-closed.
Flags
Financial-protection gate — dollar figures are never surfaced to a non-allowlisted requester; routed for GC approval.
Why this matters to a GC
Every answer above is auditable — it names its source, states which revision it used, and flags anything uncertain. The system answers the easy, high-frequency questions instantly and, just as importantly, refuses to guess on the dangerous ones (compliance, cost, contractual, safety), drafting those for a human instead. Nothing is ever auto-sent to a client without review. The result is faster field decisions, fewer "let me dig that up and get back to you" delays, and a complete record of who asked what and what they were told.
See it answer a question from your own job
Send one real project's current documents. Within a day you'll get cited answers to your team's actual questions — or we'll tell you exactly what's missing.
Start your free 14-day pilot