30-min call with RobBook a proof-of-concept call
Job 02 · Field data

// Electrical testing companies · Arc flash field data

Arc flash field data sheets, read into device tables for the engineer running the study.

Your technicians walked the building and filled in the sheets. Somebody now has to turn them into tables a study engineer can trust, and catch where the one-line says something different. A free AI proof of concept has AI read copies of 20 to 30 sheet sets from studies you finished and mark every blank and every conflict for the engineer. Your reviewer, the person who knows this data best, compares each draft with the input data the study used.

Book a proof-of-concept call30 minutes with Rob
Field sheet sets
20 to 30
Incident energy calculated
None
Device settings changed
None

// The one job

From technicians' sheets to tables an engineer can resolve

A study starts with a walk through the electrical rooms. Technicians copy nameplates, trip unit dials and conductor runs onto sheets, sometimes with a photo, and someone back at the office types it all in. That person also has to notice that the switchboard on the sheet has another name on the one-line, or that a feeder's length never got written down.

In the test, AI reads copies of those sheets and drafts structured device tables: equipment names, conductors and lengths as written, protective device settings as recorded, and a list of every field left blank or in conflict with the one-line. Each entry points back to its sheet. The engineer running the study resolves the list.

Field data sheetSite walk
Equipment name
Trip unit settings
Conductor size
Run length
DeviceSettingAs written
Invented sheet, not a real site
Read into tables
conflicts left open
Device tablesFor the engineer
Tag on one-line
Source sheet
Blank fields
One-line conflicts
TagValueOpen item
Invented table, for illustration

// What makes it hard

A study wants more fields than a walk can always fill

The input list is long and specific. Western Michigan University's arc flash study section shows what a study takes in. For breakers and fuses: maker and model, type of trip, range of settings, short circuit rating, current rating and the settings themselves. For overcurrent relays: ampere tap, time delay and instantaneous ranges and the current transformer ratio. For low-voltage cable: size, length, number, conductor material and whether the conduit is magnetic. Busway adds impedance and length, and motors add horsepower and the NEMA code letter. The draft keeps one column per field, so an empty one shows instead of quietly going missing.

Names are the first thing to drift. The same section wants equipment tags consistent across the diagrams, protective device submittals, input data and recommended settings, data sheets cross-referenced to the diagram's tag numbers, and any gap in the one-line called to the architect's attention. In practice a technician writes what's on the door and the drawing says something else. The draft keeps both names side by side, never merges them, and lists the pair as a conflict.

Some fields can't be had on a walk. IAEI Magazine's 2021 look at commercial building studies describes a transformer nameplate with its percent impedance left empty, data that takes a shutdown to read, and cables too impractical to trace end to end, which some practices handle by assuming a length or counting floors. At a 2024 IEEE chapter meeting, one engineering group said field collection needs site personnel and covers removed, and listed what it falls back on when cable data is missing, including 19 feet for low voltage and 49 feet for medium voltage. Any assumption is the engineer's to make, so the draft shows only what the sheet says, and a blank stays blank.

IEEE 1584 asks for things older sheets never carried. Consulting-Specifying Engineer's account of the 2018 edition of IEEE 1584, the Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, notes it moved from two electrode configurations to five and that enclosure types and sizes will need identifying. An IEEE chapter talk adds that conductor gap usually isn't in submittals and can be dangerous to measure, and that an enclosure counts as shallow under 20 inches high and wide and 8 inches deep, below 600 volts. IEEE 1584.2-2025 now gives checklists for this data on systems of 1000 volts and below. The draft reports what the sheet shows. Choosing a configuration, a gap or a box belongs to the study engineer.

Buyers ask for the data itself. Onondaga County, New York, in its requirements for new installations, lists field data schedules, an input data report and field photos among the deliverables, with a registered engineer running the study to IEEE 1584 formulas. In a 2025 addendum, Jurupa Community Services District in California counted 402 panels and assets, called its data collection and verification task mandatory and told bidders to identify their assumptions. Your reviewer will check that each entry landed on the right device and tag, that blanks are real, and that every one-line conflict surfaced. We're summarizing public documents here, and this isn't legal or engineering advice.

// What you send

Finished sheet sets and what the study used

Copies only
No study model access
01

20 to 30 finished sheet sets

Field sheets for a building, a unit substation or a section of a plant, as your technicians filled them in, with photos where you kept them. Include a set with gaps and one that needed a return trip.

02

The input data the study used

The final device tables or input data report for those studies, exported or printed, so your reviewer has an answer to compare against. The study model itself never comes to us.

03

The one-lines

The one-line diagram each set was read against, marked up if that's how your team works.

04

Your blank sheet, after the NDA

Your blank field sheet and any owner's data list, once the NDA is signed. Customer and site names can be masked, and files that can't leave become look-alikes built with your reviewer. Defense and aerospace sites stay out.

// Before it starts

Settled before any sheet moves

The owner puts these in writing, since an engineer's study will rest on this data.

Field data test termsOwner's call
Your reviewer
Named by the owner, usually the engineer who runs your studies
Who resolves conflicts
That engineer, in the test and in the live month
Success criteria
In writing: fields read, tags matched, blanks and conflicts caught
Sample
Picked by your reviewer across sites and equipment types
Price
A range for the live job, known before day one
NDA
Signed before any drawing or sheet is copied

// Judged by your engineer

Your input data, next to each draft

Set by set
Field by field
On the same 20 to 30 sheet setsInput data the study usedThe AI draft
Equipment names, matched to one-line tagsFilled in from your studiesFilled in from your studies
Conductor size, number and length as writtenFilled in from your studiesFilled in from your studies
Protective device maker, model and ratingFilled in from your studiesFilled in from your studies
Settings as recorded on the sheetFilled in from your studiesFilled in from your studies
Blank fields, listed rather than filledFilled in from your studiesFilled in from your studies
Conflicts with the one-line, namedFilled in from your studiesFilled in from your studies
Empty today. These rows wait for sheet sets your team has finished.The engineer's read decides it.

// After a yes

About 30 days on surveys in progress

After your reviewer's yes, sheets coming in from new surveys get the same reading for about 30 days, close enough to the walk that a technician can still go back.

The engineer running the study reviews each table before anything is keyed into a model, and resolves every open item.

A fixed price for those sheets comes before you sign. Anything further is its own job at its own price, with monthly support after.

// What could follow

Where the field data could lead

An order, nothing fixed
Separately priced
  1. 01

    Acceptance test report packages

    Field test sheets assembled into a package for your qualified person to review and sign.

    Next
  2. 02

    Label schedule checks

    Issued arc flash labels compared with the study's table by equipment name, for your engineer to review.

    Then
  3. 03

    Site data refresh lists

    A past study's device tables set beside a new walk, with what changed listed for the engineer.

    After that

// One hard limit

The study stays with the engineer.

Nothing in the proof of concept opens a panel, touches test equipment, or gets near a study model, a live report or a live site. It never calculates incident energy, never picks a configuration or gap, never sets a protective device, never judges a result and never signs a report. It reads copies and marks what's blank or in conflict. Every technical judgment stays with a qualified person, who also signs every report.

Priced per job. You get a range before the proof of concept and a fixed price before you sign.

Rob gives a range on the call, based on how many studies you collect for in a year and how many devices a typical set holds.

// Questions

Questions about the field sheets

Will the AI calculate incident energy or fill in the model?
No. It reads sheets into tables and stops there. It never runs a calculation, opens a study model or enters anything into one, and the engineer decides what goes in.
What if a length or an impedance was never written down?
It stays blank and goes on the list. The draft never assumes a value, even a typical one. Whether to measure again, go back to a shop drawing or assume something is the engineer's call.
Do you choose the electrode configuration or conductor gap?
No. If your sheets record them, the draft carries them over as written, and otherwise it shows them as blank. Those choices belong to the study engineer.
We collect data on a tablet rather than paper. Does that change anything?
No. Send exports of what the app captured, along with any photos. We read what comes out, and nobody logs in to the app.
What does the one-line comparison actually do?
It lists each place the sheet and the drawing name or size something differently, and cites both. It doesn't decide which is right; the person running the study resolves it.
Does this make our study compliant with NFPA 70E?
That isn't something we can say. We don't assess compliance with NFPA 70E, IEEE 1584 or anything else, and this isn't legal or engineering advice.
Rob Eason

Rob Eason, founder

// Book a proof of concept call

Start with a survey that needed a second trip.

Thirty minutes with Rob on your firm, your role and roughly how many studies you collect data for each year. Drawings and sheets stay with you until the NDA is signed.

  • Co-owned a 60-employee financial services firm and sold his share to his partner.
  • Ran GOSO Technologies, a Boston solar company rated 5/5 across 24 Google reviews.
  • 5/5 across 83 reviews in HighLevel's Certified Admin Directory.
  • 4.3/5 from 6 Google reviews of Massmarket AI.
  • Every directory and Google review, critical ones included, is shown word for word at massmarket.ai/reviews.
  • Takes every proof-of-concept call himself.