Artificial intelligence and workflow automation have transformed the way engineering reports are produced. They have removed repetitive administration, accelerated information retrieval and helped ensure consistency across thousands of cases. However, one thing at Laird has never changed.
Every report remains the responsibility of an experienced automotive engineer.
When a new instruction arrives, whether API or email, it enters a structured workflow rather than a simple document template. Every single action is recorded. The source of the instruction, supporting photographs, vehicle information, repair history, technical documentation, manufacturer procedures and previous correspondence all become part of a traceable case history.
Our platform then performs a series of automated tasks that would traditionally consume valuable engineering time. Data from sources like Audatex, Glass's, Motor Checks, DVLA, etc is retrieved, documentation is organised, previous accident statuses can be referenced, and applicable technical guidance from Thatcham, Manufacturers, or Audatex is surfaced for consideration. The system can identify missing information, flag inconsistencies and suggest areas requiring further attention.
Importantly, these are recommendations, not conclusions.
Every automated step creates an audit trail. We know what information was available, when it was retrieved, what prompted each recommendation and how the case progressed through the workflow. Nothing is hidden inside a "black box". The process is transparent, repeatable and capable of being reviewed at any stage.
That is where the engineer comes in. Our assessors do not simply approve what the system produces. They challenge it, police it & take responsibility for it.
They assess whether the damage mechanism matches the evidence. They consider vehicle construction, repair methodology, ADAS implications, hidden damage, economics of repair and the wider context of the claim. If the available evidence does not support a recommendation, it is changed. If further investigation is required, it is requested. If experience points in a different direction, professional judgement prevails.
This distinction is critical because engineering is rarely binary.
Two vehicles with apparently identical damage may require entirely different repair strategies because of specification differences, previous repairs, corrosion, calibration requirements or subtle indicators visible only through experience. These are decisions that depend upon technical understanding, not pattern matching alone.
Our workflows are therefore designed around human-in-the-loop engineering. Automation & AI handle structured, repeatable tasks that computers perform exceptionally well. Engineers remain responsible for interpretation, technical reasoning and the conclusions that ultimately appear within the report. The result is a more consistent and more accountable one.
Routine administrative work is completed in seconds rather than minutes & is entirely accurate. Relevant information is less likely to be overlooked. Every significant action is recorded. Every revision is documented. Every report follows a consistent engineering workflow while still allowing professional discretion where individual cases demand it.
That combination delivers something increasingly valuable in today's industry: confidence. Whether a report is being used by an insurer, a solicitor, or repair network ultimately our Civil Procedures Rules compliant reports can, and often do, get presented before the courts, so we need a clear line of accountability from the original instruction through to the final engineering opinion.
The technology helps us work smarter.
The engineering experience ensures we work correctly.
Every report that leaves Laird has a human behind it, someone who has reviewed the evidence, applied professional judgement and taken responsibility for the conclusions.
While technology continues to evolve, accountability cannot be automated.
