Skip to content
QpiAI Agent Hive

Global Automotive OEM · Anonymized deployment story

How one field symptom becomes a decision engineers can defend.

A symptom appears after a software update, but the evidence sits across vehicle events, ECU state, software history, workshop records and engineering changes. Agent Hive reconstructs the case. Engineers inspect and challenge the explanation, then human owners approve the next step.

Discuss a field-quality caseBack to Automotive
SDV field-quality caseRecurring function loss after software updateAnonymized · Case SDV-0472
Field symptom
Case viewVehicle, configuration, timeline and related cases lined up
H1 · Hardware stateH2 · Configuration dependencyH3 · Service condition
Vehicles to reviewVehicles that share the same build and configuration conditions
Engineer reviewContainment path ready for approval

Reconstruct what happened before deciding why.

The order matters. Each event stays connected to the record it came from, so an engineer can open the evidence behind the sequence.

  1. 01

    Software installation

    Build 24.7 enters the vehicle

    Source: OTA history
  2. 02

    Vehicle event

    Camera service restarts

    Source: Vehicle telemetry
  3. 03

    ECU fault state

    Revision C and calibration 7.2 active

    Source: ECU snapshot
  4. 04

    DTC

    B14CF recorded after restart

    Source: DTC event
  5. 05

    Workshop confirmation

    Blank view reproduced after restart

    Source: Service record
  6. 06

    Engineering change history

    Dependency change CR-218 identified

    Source: Change record

Give every team the same case, not another summary.

Agent Hive keeps the relationships between vehicle identity, field records and engineering evidence visible while every record retains its source.

Vehicle and field evidence

  • Vehicle and fleet identity
  • Telemetry
  • DTCs
  • ECU configuration
  • Software and OTA history
Shared field-quality case

Vehicle, time, version, configuration and provenance stay aligned.

Engineering and supplier evidence

  • Requirements
  • Tests
  • Change history
  • Service and warranty records
  • Supplier validation evidence

Don’t settle on an explanation too early.

The leading explanation stays open to challenge. Supporting, contradictory and missing evidence travel with every hypothesis.

Software-build dependency

Leading
Supporting evidence
Issue begins after build 24.7 and aligns with CR-218.
Contradictory evidence
Some vehicles on build 24.7 do not show the symptom.
Missing evidence
Dependency replay on the affected configuration.

ECU/configuration dependency

In review
Supporting evidence
Affected cases share ECU revision C.
Contradictory evidence
Revision C alone does not reproduce the issue.
Missing evidence
Full calibration and option-code comparison.

Component or environmental condition

Open
Supporting evidence
Workshop notes record intermittent recovery.
Contradictory evidence
Region does not align with the case pattern.
Missing evidence
Supplier bench result under the matching software state.

Engineers can challenge or reject any explanation.

Field quality and engineering review the same case.

Agent Hive assembles the work. Specialists inspect it in their own role, and the quality approver owns the final gate.

  1. 1

    Field quality

    Owns the case and checks the recurring symptom.

    Expert review
  2. 2

    Vehicle software

    Reviews build, package and rollout evidence.

    Expert review
  3. 3

    Systems engineering

    Checks interfaces and configuration dependencies.

    Expert review
  4. 4

    Validation

    Defines the evidence still needed to reproduce the condition.

    Expert review
  5. 5

    Supplier or component engineering

    Reviews component tests and contradictory evidence.

    Expert review
  6. 6

    Quality approver

    Accepts or rejects the containment package.

    Approval gate

The case has to answer four practical questions.

  1. 1What most likely caused the issue?
  2. 2Which vehicles or components share the relevant conditions?
  3. 3What evidence still needs validation?
  4. 4Who approves the containment or corrective action?

Governed decision package

Evidence, reasoning and ownership travel together.

  • Case evidence
  • Causal reasoning
  • Alternatives considered
  • Exposure definition
  • Required validation
  • Human approval
  • Audit record

Human approval required

Keep the investigation close to the evidence when you need to.

Identity controls, source permissions, evidence traceability and deployment boundaries stay explicit in every option.

Managed

Let QpiAI run the platform for you.

You keep identity rules and approved connections while QpiAI operates the Agent Hive environment.

QpiAI managed environment

  1. Customer identity
  2. Approved sources
  3. Audit history

Bring us the field-quality case your teams still piece together by hand.

We’ll trace the records, review roles and deployment boundary around one real investigation.

Book a demoBack to Automotive