Ermetis

A sample built on fictional content. Holcombe Mechanical is not a real company and this reflects no real engagement.

A customer email comes in. Watch it become a sent reply.

Holcombe Mechanical is a fictional $16M commercial mechanical contractor. Its service history and maintenance agreements live in BuildOps, its agreement documents live on SharePoint, and both have been organized and approved. The service desk answers customer email from those records, and a person reads every reply before it goes out. Each step below is the screen a real person would be looking at.

What it is worth

The value in this workflow is how long a customer waits for a first reply, and how many people an inquiry passes through before somebody answers it. We would measure both on your own service email. The diagnosis measured quoting and not this one, so we do not put a number on it.

8:16The service desk watches this shared inbox from inside Holcombe’s Microsoft 365 tenant. It read Dana’s email, found three questions in it, pulled the Store 104 service history and the agreement from BuildOps and SharePoint, and started drafting. The emergency clock is already running: the agreement promises a four-hour response.

HSService review · SRV-2214 +
‹ › ↻🔒holcombemech.sharepoint.com/sites/service/review/SRV-2214
SharePointSearch this site
Holcombe Service

Bexley Foods · Dana McElroy · three questions

Draftwaiting on coordinator review · assembled 8:19
What Dana askedWhat the draft answersSource, click to open
Is the Store 104 walk-in covered? Yes. The walk-in at Store 104 is on the covered-equipment schedule, and emergency calls are covered under the agreement.
How soon can someone be out? This morning. The draft holds a 10:30 window from today’s dispatch board; dispatch confirms it before the reply goes.
Why were the Store 121 belts billed? They should not have been. The belts were replaced on the June planned-maintenance visit, which the agreement includes. The draft says a credit is being processed.

Checks · plain code, run when the draft was assembled

✓ PassedThe agreement is active: term runs through March, and Store 104 is on the signed equipment schedule. Read from the document, not remembered.
✓ PassedThe response commitment: four hours on emergency calls. The proposed 10:30 window is inside it, with the deadline shown on the reply.
✓ PassedThe invoice math: WO-30201 is dated inside the June PM visit, and belts on PM visits are an included item. The credit amount recomputed from the invoice lines.
⚑ FlagSecond failure at Store 104 in sixty days. WO-30412 on July 8 was the same cooler. The repeat-failure rule routes this to the service manager before the reply commits to a plain repair.
⚑ FlagA credit memo needs the controller. The draft can say a credit is coming, but only Terry Hobbs can issue one. Queued with the recomputed amount, $412.

8:19Five minutes after Dana’s email, the draft is waiting on Holcombe’s own SharePoint. Click any source to see exactly where an answer came from. The two things that need a person are flagged, not guessed at; nothing ships from this screen.

HSService review · SRV-2214 +
‹ › ↻🔒holcombemech.sharepoint.com/sites/service/review/SRV-2214
SharePointSearch this site
Holcombe Service

Bexley Foods · Dana McElroy · three questions

In reviewDonna Kesler · 8:37
FLAG 1 · DECIDEDRenee Suggs read the repeat-failure flag and changed the plan: Ray Mabry’s crew goes this morning, and she asked the quoting side for a replacement-option quote on the cooler, since two failures in sixty days is a pattern, not bad luck. Her decision is recorded on the work order.
FLAG 2 · RESOLVEDTerry Hobbs approved the $412 credit memo from his exception queue at 8:34. The reply can now say the credit is issued, not promised.
DISPATCH · CONFIRMEDKathy Pardue confirmed the 10:30 window on the board. The reply commits to it.
The edits do not vanish into this one reply. The repeat failure is recorded against the Store 104 cooler, so the next inquiry about it starts from the pattern, and the replacement-quote request went to the same memory the quote drafter runs on.
✓ Sent by Donna Kesler, 8:41. The reply, both flag decisions, and the credit memo are logged against the inquiry.

8:37Donna owns the reply. The two flags went to the people who own those calls, Renee on service and Terry on the credit, and their decisions came back recorded. The system drafted; the people judged. That order never reverses.

8:41This is what Dana receives, twenty-seven minutes after she wrote: a crew on the way, a straight answer on coverage, and her invoice question settled with the credit already issued. The citations, the flags, and the log never leave Holcombe’s side.

Under the hood· what ran, and where everything lives · drawn by Ermetis, not an app─  ▢  ✕
WHERE IT PULLS FROM BuildOpshistory · dispatch · invoices SharePointsigned agreements · service rules The memoryrulings · known failure patterns HOLCOMBE’S MICROSOFT 365 TENANT Outlook · the email arrivesshared inbox watched, questions read The service desk agentreads with Holcombe’s permissions Plain-code checksagreement terms · math · deadlines Flags route to ownersRenee on service · Terry on the credit The review screendraft · citations · flags · log Donna sendsjudgment stays with the person The reply, in Outlookto Dana, plain and complete what the people decide goes back into the memory

What runs it

The service desk is an agent configured in Holcombe’s own Microsoft 365 tenant. It reads BuildOps and the agreement documents under the permissions Holcombe already set. Nothing about this workflow leaves their environment.
The model drafts; code checks. Language models read the email and assemble the reply with its citations. The agreement dates, the invoice math, and the response-time clock run as plain code, so a check either passes or a person looks at it.

Where the knowledge lives

The agreements are signed documents on SharePoint with an owner and a covered-equipment schedule per customer. The desk answers coverage questions from the document, and says so.
The service history stays in BuildOps, which is already the system of record. The desk reads it there rather than keeping a copy, so the answer is as current as the last work order.

What gets recorded

Every reply, escalation, and credit is logged, with who decided and when. The Store 104 repeat failure is now a recorded pattern, so the memory got better because the call was handled.

 This is the whole machine. Three places the knowledge already lives, one agent inside the tenant, checks that are code, flags that go to the people who own the call, and a person sending every reply.

What this took, in this fictional world

The reply went out twenty-seven minutes after Dana’s email, with one touch from Donna and two decisions that reached the right people the same morning. Before the system, an email like this one bounced between dispatch, service, and accounting, and the invoice question alone could take days to run down.

The same workflow, elsewhere

At a distributor, this is order status, pricing, and availability questions answered from the order history. At a professional-services firm, it is client status and billing questions answered from the engagement record. The pattern is the same: answered from what the company knows, every claim showing its source, a person sending.