Geotechnical Interpretive Report

Riverside Development, Stage 2 — 14 Quarry Road, Brisbane QLD · Report No. GR-2026-0142 Rev A

QA · Rules engine system

Rule QA-12 fired: PI = 45 at BH04 (2.5 m) exceeds package bound (PI ≤ 35) for residual Brisbane Tuff clays. The draft references this flag — no contradiction. ✓

Panel · dissent on accept

Gemini scored 2.8/5 on "conservatism of interpretation" for the alluvial-lens opinion. Claude 4.1/5, GPT 4.3/5. Consensus 3.7 — passes, dissent logged for reviewer.

Claude4.1Interpretation reasonable; further sampling recommendation is an appropriate hedge.

GPT4.3Consistent with regional geology and the cited precedent (PR-0098).

Gemini2.8"A single localized-lens explanation from one elevated PI result is under-supported. Without additional sampling, the report should either present the systematic-reactivity alternative or adopt the more conservative classification for footing design."

Rubric v2 · "conservatism of interpretation" · dissent is logged to the audit trail and shown to the reviewer at sign-off — never auto-resolved.

DV

Declan V. 10:42

Can we strengthen the groundwater paragraph — client asked specifically about seasonal variation.

Auger · suggestion just now

Redraft of bearing statement after your instruction "be more conservative about the fill layer".

✦ Report assistant

Answers questions in chat — never touches the document.

Context — click to include / exclude

Project data · 6 BH, 23 tests QA flags · 2 AS 1726 / AS 2870 Precedents · 2 similar Figures · 4 available

Draft the subsurface conditions section.

✦ AUGER

Drafted Section 5 from BH01–06 strata, SPT results and 4 groundwater observations.

9 claims cited — 6 data (all ✓ verified), 1 standard, 1 precedent
1 QA flag woven in: PI = 45 at BH04 (rule QA-12)
1 judgment marked → assumptions register

Be more conservative about the fill layer Add seasonal groundwater commentary Why is BH04 plasticity flagged?

Be more conservative about the fill layer

✦ AUGER

I've proposed a tracked-change suggestion on the bearing statement — see the margin to accept or reject. The original wording stays untouched until you decide.

Assistant sees only the context above · every claim is cited & verified

Change history

v7 · current Section 5 — user edit

Chris R · 2 min ago

Pending suggestion on bearing statement (Auger, from instruction)

v6 Section 5 — redraft

Auger (Claude drafter) · 10:38 · $0.42 · profile v3

encountered in most boreholes encountered in all boreholes, extending to depths of between 0.8 m and 1.2 m

v5 Section 4 — accepted

Declan V. · 10:31 · panel consensus 4.2

Accepted with 2 minor edits

v4 Section 5 — first draft

Auger (Claude drafter) · 10:24 · $0.51 · 9 claims cited

Initial generation from confirmed inputs

Final report preview firm-template-v2.dotx · clean issue copy — citations, comments & assumptions register stripped 90% Export options →