austente
v0.2 · Probabilistic compliance, made to tolerance.

ASME, API and NACE compliance, with cited posteriors and a hash-chain audit trail.

Pick a material, design a vessel, run an FFS — every output ships with literature-cited Bayesian uncertainty, a confidence badge, and a stamped P.E. PDF you can verify decades later. No black-box answers. No hand-wavy regulators.

Bayesian alloys
13
Engineering charts
40+
Code clauses indexed
1500+
Compliance checks
36
What it does

Every layer of the stack, integrated.

Bayesian phase calc

Probabilistic CALPHAD

Phase fractions in steel + Ni alloys, with calibrated uncertainty bands. Engineers don't get a point estimate — they get a probability that their specific heat clears the spec.

How it works
  • ·13 alloy systems calibrated to specific publications: Andersson 1987, Hammar 1979, Williams 1958, Pohl 2007, Hertzman 1985.
  • ·Laplace approximation around the posterior mode + 4 000-sample posterior predictive draws for fast inference (~50 ms per call).
  • ·Returns mean σ-phase / γ′ fraction + 95 % credible interval + decision verdict (P(σ ≤ threshold)).
  • ·pycalphad TDB integration when available; empirical-equation fallback otherwise.
Why this matters: Thermo-Calc gives a deterministic phase fraction. We give the probability your production heat falls below your tolerance threshold — the number an engineer actually needs to sign a stamp.
Code-clause math

Pressure equipment

Direct closed-form ASME / API / EN checks for every pressure boundary. No FEA setup, no post-processing.

How it works
  • ·ASME VIII Div 1 (UG-27 cylindrical, UG-32 ellipsoidal heads, external pressure) + Div 2 (nozzle reinforcement, fatigue Annex 5.B).
  • ·B31.1 power piping · B31.3 process piping · B31.4 liquid pipeline · B31.8 gas transmission.
  • ·API 650 new tanks · API 653 inspection / re-rate · API 661 air-cooled HEX · API 660 shell-and-tube.
  • ·ASME III NB nuclear-class-1 stress checks; EN 13445 (PED), EN 13480 (industrial piping) European track.
Why this matters: ANSYS does FEA, you write the post-process yourself. Granta has lookup tables. We pre-package the actual code-clause math with the citation embedded in the verdict.
API 579 conversational

Fitness-for-service

Step-by-step API 579 walkthroughs that cite the specific clause at each branch. Real physics — not a yes/no decision tree.

How it works
  • ·Parts 4 (general metal loss), 6 (pitting), 8 (weld misalignment), 11 (fire damage), 12 (dent / gouge), 13 (shell distortion), 14 (fatigue).
  • ·Conversational session: each level (L1 screening → L2 engineering → L3 FEA) asks only for the inputs that level needs.
  • ·Physics callbacks at each step — erosion-velocity, cavitation, thermal-shock — fire when the level requires them, with cited correlations.
  • ·Verdicts cite the §clause; rationale is reproducible from frozen state.
Why this matters: Manual API 579 takes an integrity engineer a week per asset. Conversational walkthrough takes minutes. Same verdict, same citation chain, same defensibility.
API 581 RBI

Risk-based inspection

Probability of Failure × Consequence with full damage-factor breakdown — every contributing mechanism is listed and its DF rationale is auditable.

How it works
  • ·PoF: thinning, SCC, brittle fracture, creep, corrosion-under-insulation, sour H2S, HTHA — each its own DF that combines into a total via API 581 §3.
  • ·POD-adjusted DF reduces PoF based on the inspection effectiveness category (A best → E none) actually achieved on the last campaign.
  • ·CoF: fluid hazard × inventory × hole-size scenario → area consequence (m²) + business consequence (USD).
  • ·Combined risk → 5 × 5 matrix position → recommended next inspection date + NDE method, rendered as an inline matrix image.
Why this matters: Enterprise RBI software is offline-only and six-figures per seat. Same API 581 math here, with the risk matrix rendered next to the verdict.
The differentiator

Compliance bridge

MaterialState + ServiceConditions → cited code-verdict in milliseconds. This is the single thing no giant ships.

How it works
  • ·Every clause is a small Python function: state + service → PASS / WARN / FAIL plus citation text.
  • ·Joint probability P(PASS) propagates posterior uncertainty across every check — not just point estimates.
  • ·Compliance diff between two MaterialStates (before / after MOC, code-edition delta).
  • ·52 public-domain owner-spec overlays apply on top: NACE MR0175, API 941, ASME PCC-2, DNV-ST-F101, ISO 27913, EN 13445, FDA 21 CFR 211, …
Why this matters: Granta is a database — you read material values out. ANSYS is a solver — you compute stress. We're the verdict engine: state in, ASME-compliance out, with citation chain.
Auditable history

Time-machine replay

Reconstruct any historical verdict from its SHA-256 stamp — byte-for-byte, even years later. Litigation-grade.

How it works
  • ·Stamp manifest captures: inputs hash + outputs hash + frozen code edition + frozen posterior version + MTC heat-genealogy chain.
  • ·Replay rebuilds the verdict from the manifest using the same code that issued it. Reproducibility is mechanical, not approximate.
  • ·RFC 3161 trusted timestamp from FreeTSA proves the moment-in-time on every stamp.
  • ·Edition-delta tool diffs verdicts across code revisions (e.g. ASME VIII 2019 → 2023) for an entire fleet at once.
Why this matters: Best the giants offer is 'we'll search the email archive'. We give you a SHA-256 → exact verdict reproduction in seconds.
Tamper-evident

Audit hash chain

Every stamp is a hash-chained PDF. Modify a single byte and the chain breaks; an auditor can verify provenance without trusting our server.

How it works
  • ·SHA-256 over canonical (sorted-key) JSON of every input, computed before the verdict is generated.
  • ·SHA-256 over outputs + posterior trace + every embedded visual after generation.
  • ·Replay snapshot includes all dependencies — TDB version, code edition, MTC OCR text, vendor-overlay revision.
  • ·Stamp PDF embeds both hashes + RFC 3161 timestamp from a trusted authority, plus engineer-of-record license + jurisdiction.
Why this matters: A static PDF report has no provenance. Ours is a verifiable evidence package — third party can re-derive the verdict from the manifest, without contacting us.
Independent verification

Cross-vendor sanity

Every shipped output is benchmarked against an external reference. Disagreements are surfaced, not hidden.

How it works
  • ·Lightweight emulators wrap common vendor outputs — Thermo-Calc TDB lookup, Aspen heat-balance, FactSage activity, AFT Fathom Δp.
  • ·On every verdict: matseng prediction vs each emulator → quantified delta in % of measurement uncertainty.
  • ·Per-mechanism breakdown when emulators disagree (e.g. our σ-phase posterior says 1.1 %, Thermo-Calc TDB says 0.6 % — here's why).
  • ·Tolerance band configurable per parameter (default 20 %); outside-band disagreements get flagged YELLOW on the stamp.
Why this matters: A vendor that marks its own homework is a vendor you can\'t trust at audit time. We benchmark every output against an external reference — and tell you when we disagree.
Cited-clause RAG

Standards retrieval

403 cited code-clause chunks indexed in a TF-IDF + semantic search corpus. The agent quotes the actual clause text and cites the §number every time it makes a verdict.

How it works
  • ·STANDARDS_KB ships 403 chunks: ASME VIII Div 1+2, B31.1/3/4/8, ASME IX, API 510/570/581/653/941/945, NACE MR0175/MR0103/SP0472, BS 7910, DNV-ST-F101, ISO 27913, EN 13445/13480.
  • ·Each chunk is structured (standard, clause, title, text, formula, edition, effective_year) — not blind text-blobs.
  • ·TF-IDF retrieval over the chunk corpus + semantic re-ranking surfaces the right clause for the question.
  • ·No cloud-side embedding API needed; the index is part of the platform.
Why this matters: Most agents hallucinate code-clause text. Ours quotes the chunk and shows the §number. The verdict is grounded in the same clause an auditor would open the codebook to.
BYO-API

Integrated AI agent

264 callable tools, one chat interface. Your API key, never ours. Engineering Stack-Overflow with the platform's full toolbox underneath.

How it works
  • ·TF-IDF + synonym-expansion routing: 264 tools indexed, agent sees the top 12 most-relevant per prompt (~3 K tokens instead of ~100 K).
  • ·Anthropic prompt caching on system + tool block — 0.1× pricing on cache hits, drops typical-prompt cost from $0.30 to $0.03.
  • ·Direct browser-to-Anthropic SSE streaming. Your key + your prompt never touch our backend.
  • ·Agent loop executes tools end-to-end (RBI → matrix-visualize → stamped package → replay manifest in one prompt) with self-healing retry on routing miss.
Why this matters: Giants still ship 1990s GUI workflows. The agent turns 264 specialized engineering tools into one usable interface — the platform is an API + a chat, not a desktop install.
Where we sit in the market

Different problem. Different deliverable.

The teams below built the foundations modern materials engineering sits on. We use their work, we respect their work, and we specifically chose not to compete on it. We’re solving the piece they each leave for the engineer to assemble at the end.

Thermo-Calc · Pandat · FactSage
Decades of curated thermodynamic databases. The reference standard for phase equilibria — we run pycalphad on top of TDBs they helped legitimise.
+Where they hand you a phase fraction, we hand you the probability your specific heat clears your spec. Not a different calc — a different deliverable.
Granta MI · MatWeb
The most comprehensive material-property catalogues in industry. If you need the room-temperature Sy of Inconel 625, that's where you go.
+We don't replace the catalogue. We translate a catalogue value plus a service condition into a cited code-clause verdict.
Aspen Plus · HYSYS
Process simulation that runs entire refineries. World-class at heat balances, flow regimes, equilibrium reactions.
+We start where their simulation ends. Their stream reaches our compliance bridge, our stamp goes back into their workflow.
ANSYS · Abaqus
Industry-defining FEA. Anything we’d say about stress fields they say better.
+We do the closed-form code-clause checks ANSYS leaves to you. The hash chain on our verdict references the FEA model — we cite it, we don't re-solve it.
Enterprise RBI suites
Mature API 581 implementations. Fleet-wide deployments at every major operator.
+The same API 581 maths, online, with the matrix image inline next to the verdict and the damage-factor rationale spelled out in plain language.
Word + Excel + a P.E. seal
The actual deliverable engineers ship today. It works. It’s how the industry signs off.
+Same legal weight, mechanical reproducibility on top: SHA-256 over canonical inputs, RFC 3161 timestamp, replay manifest. At year 10, the verdict regenerates byte-for-byte.

All trademarks belong to their respective owners. The descriptions above reflect public-knowledge product scope; we’re not asserting any deficiency in those products — we’re articulating where austenite sits adjacent to them.

What we don’t cover

We tell you where we stop.

Every Bayesian posterior we ship carries the applicable range it was calibrated against. Every verdict carries its confidence badge. The coverage page lists — page one, before you sign — the alloy systems and physics regimes we don’t yet model, with citations to where the literature gap sits.

That’s not modesty. That’s the only way you can put your stamp on the result.

Read the coverage list →
austente

Free for non-commercial use. Bring your own AI key for the agent — it never touches our servers.

a Javanshir Hasanov production