Horizon RWT
Technical signals. Visible relationships.
A well-log workbench for importing local data, comparing signals, and inspecting estimates with supporting evidence.
Explore the project studyOperational data
DOAPO
Public records. A usable decision context.
An explorer for North Dakota permit, spud, and well-status records with explicit decision boundaries.
INDEPENDENT PORTFOLIO PROJECT
Context & intent
Operational discussions need a shared view of the records, their meaning, and the distinction between a suggestion and an authorized action.
Organize relevant public records into an interface that supports review and traceable decisions.
Project context and development approach
This is an independent project from my portfolio across FractalDesignZ and ZuluYokohama. My practice centers on directing work with substantial assistance from agentic AI and development harnesses. The mechanisms and evidence below describe this project; they do not attribute every component to manual authorship or a specialist review.
Implemented mechanisms
- Well and operator views organize public permit, spud, and status information.
- Typed decision packets separate proposals, evaluation, and human authorization.
- Evidence exports preserve the records and context associated with a review.
Evidence & merit
Source review describes implementation; recorded tests describe the cases that were exercised; functional review considers observed behavior. Independent specialist validation is a separate activity and is claimed only when documented. An automated checker does not itself establish independent professional review.
Representative source includes role-specific decision gates and bounded ranking logic. The packet architecture distinguishes design intent, control envelopes, measured information, and authorized action.
A recommendation is exposed as a recommendation, with its source context and authorization requirements visible.
Scope of the claim
The inspected public index does not supply oil, gas, or water production volumes. Source review does not establish commercial performance, operator affiliation, or a production authorization system.
An annotated source walkthrough
Keep a proposal separate from permission to act.
- Record the contextA packet keeps measured facts, intent and unresolved information distinct.
- Evaluate within the rulesThe evaluated result is not itself authorization. The reviewed code removes OPEN_CANDIDATE from the evaluator path.
- Make authority explicitThe openCandidate function requires the human_open role value. This models a boundary; it does not prove authenticated production authorization.
Source review confirms separate propose, evaluate and open paths in roles.ts. It does not establish operational deployment, authenticated role enforcement or a field outcome.
Connected practices
A useful next step
Bring the context. Find the next step.
Bring the outcome, the context, and the constraints.
We’ll start by defining a useful next question.
Start a conversation
Request first. Scope and next steps follow review.
Connect the method to your business.
Explore consulting services ↗ · Read the practical guides ↗ · Prepare a discovery brief →