Find it in the documents, not the field.

Machine-speed analysis of technical specifications. Find contradictions, gaps, and duplicates before sign-off.

For systems engineers · procurement teams · program offices · decision makers

Bad specifications cost projects millions.Find flaws before your customers do.

No review process catches every contradiction in a thousand requirements. Wyzer does — before the document leaves your team.

RFQ-2406-Avionics · Page 142 of 318
analysing…
REQ-1042
System shall respond quickly to user input."quickly" is unquantified
AMBIGUITY
REQ-1043
Latency must not exceed 200 ms under nominal load.measurable · complete
CLEAR
REQ-1044
Response time shall be under 500 ms in all conditions.conflicts with REQ-1043
CONTRADICTION
REQ-1045
The interface shall support multiple concurrent sessions.92% similar to REQ-0788
DUPLICATE
REQ-1046
No requirement specifies failover behaviour for region X.reliability domain · gap
COVERAGE GAP
REQ-1047
Data shall be encrypted at rest using approved algorithms.maps to ISO 27001 A.10.1
COMPLIANCE
Document quality score
0/100
~80%
Of programme failures start in the specification
29×
Cheaper to catch conflicts before you sign
>70%
Less time on manual checking
100×
Cost increase when defects reach production
What changes

Less rework. Fewer surprises. Better sign-offs.

01Faster review cyclesNo more "that's not what we meant" conversations. Every unclear requirement is flagged and rewritten before it reaches engineering — so reviews close faster.
02Fewer contradictions, less reworkYour engineers shouldn't discover a conflict six months into a build. Wyzer catches contradicting requirements before anyone starts work.
03Confidence before buildIf it's not in the spec, it's not in the contract. Know your specification is complete before it goes to suppliers — not after they use the gaps against you.
How it works

Five views into the same document.

Wyzer runs five analyses on every document — then gives you the tools to act on what it finds. Score each requirement for quality, spot contradictions before they become contract disputes, find what was never written down, check every clause against the standards you have to meet, and explore the full web of dependencies.

Requirement being reviewed
REQ-1042page 142

The system shall respond quickly to user input under expected load conditions.

Suggested rewrite

The system shall respond to user input within 200 ms (P99) when sustaining ≤ 500 concurrent sessions, as defined in §3.2 Load Profile.

What was scored
Ambiguity
"quickly" and "expected load" are subjective and unquantified.
28
Measurability
No threshold, unit, or condition expressed.
31
Conciseness
Single statement, no redundant clauses.
78
Completeness
Missing: target latency, percentile, load definition.
44
OverallBelow review threshold (60)
42/100
Why this matters beyond engineering

Five business risks every specification carries.

Commercial

Rework costs more than the fix.

Finding a conflict after build has started costs 29× more than catching it before sign-off. Change requests negotiated under delivery pressure rarely go in your favour.

Delay

Programme slippage starts in the spec.

Most schedule overruns trace back to ambiguous or missing requirements that nobody questioned at the start. Every week lost to late-stage rework is a week that was already visible in the document.

Margin

Specification gaps erode contract margin.

Suppliers price for what is written. Gaps become change requests. Change requests become margin loss. Wyzer surfaces what is missing before the contract is signed — while there is still time to protect the number.

Regulatory

Missing compliance becomes an audit failure.

New rules and standards do not pause your programme. Wyzer checks your specification against the obligations you are contractually or legally bound by — before you submit, not after the audit flags the gap.

Reputational

Recalls are traceable to documents.

93 million vehicles were recalled across 2023–2025. Most failures were present in the requirements document long before a single part was built. Customers and regulators do not distinguish between engineering error and business failure.

What Detective delivers

The tools that turn findings into action.

Sherlock is not a general-purpose AI — it is a purpose-built engine trained specifically to interpret engineering requirements at scale. It pairs AI-driven semantic analysis with deterministic rule-based validation, so every finding is consistent, reproducible, and explainable.

Relationship map
Requirements clustered into semantic neighbourhoods, revealing dependencies, risk concentrations, and the blast radius of any change.
Visual artefact review
Diagrams, tables, and images analysed alongside the text — every mismatch mapped back to the affected requirement IDs.
Gap-closing questionnaire
Structured prompts generated from the coverage analysis, walking specification authors through missing requirements one domain at a time.
In production

What teams say.

“Detective caught a contradiction on page 214 of an RFQ that two engineers had already signed off. That single finding paid for the platform.”

Head of Systems Engineering

“Three classes of contradiction, ranked by severity, with the requirement IDs cited. Our review meetings went from arguments to decisions.”

Director, Programme Assurance

“Coverage analysis told us what we had not yet specified. We do not release a tier-1 spec without running it through Detective first.”

VP Engineering

“The visual-artefact review caught a diagram that disagreed with its own caption. Manual review had missed it for two cycles.”

Chief Compliance Officer

“Detective caught a contradiction on page 214 of an RFQ that two engineers had already signed off. That single finding paid for the platform.”

Head of Systems Engineering

“Three classes of contradiction, ranked by severity, with the requirement IDs cited. Our review meetings went from arguments to decisions.”

Director, Programme Assurance

“Coverage analysis told us what we had not yet specified. We do not release a tier-1 spec without running it through Detective first.”

VP Engineering

“The visual-artefact review caught a diagram that disagreed with its own caption. Manual review had missed it for two cycles.”

Chief Compliance Officer
Find it in the documents, not the field.

find the gaps before
they cost you.

A 30-minute walkthrough on one of your own documents. Bring an RFQ, a draft spec, or a certification package — we analyse it for you.