The operating problem
An operations team reconstructs a delayed shipment from carrier messages and internal records before proposing a recovery action. The workflow is not simply a question-answering task: it requires a reliable relationship between business entities, current evidence, and the review responsibilities of staff.
Events arrive from multiple carriers with inconsistent timestamps, status codes, and identifiers, making exception ownership difficult. A useful initial scope therefore focuses on assembling the right context and making missing information visible. It avoids treating a generated answer as an approved business decision.
The proposed data foundation
Potential inputs include shipment events, booking records, carrier messages, service rules. Establish a source inventory before choosing connectors. For each input, record its owner, approved use, identifier conventions, update cadence, and retention requirements.
Normalize carrier status vocabularies, keep both event and ingestion time, and retain the source of every status transition. The curated domain model centers on Shipment, Movement event, Booking, Service exception. Keep raw source evidence separate from validated records and from the outputs prepared for a reviewer. This separation makes reconciliation and incident investigation more manageable.
AI and agent responsibilities
Summarize delays, gather shipment context, and draft recovery options. A permission-aware retrieval layer can assemble the relevant approved context. Extraction or generation should return structured drafts, source references, and unresolved questions; it should not silently supply facts that are absent from the records.
Retrieve itinerary and policy information and propose service responses. A second bounded responsibility can handle a related task while retaining the same identity and governance boundary. Multi-agent coordination is optional: use it only when separated responsibilities improve traceability or control.
Human review and exception paths
Carrier commitments, route changes, rebooking, and refunds require approval. Missing documents, conflicting records, unavailable tools, and low-quality retrieval should lead to a visible exception. Define who can resolve each exception and what evidence must be retained with the decision.
How the scenario would be evaluated
Proposed evaluation areas: event ordering quality, exception identification, evidence traceability, and recovery-option review time. Build a representative set containing normal cases, incomplete cases, outdated information, access restrictions, and tool failures. Compare the assisted workflow with the current process using the same acceptance criteria.
No percentage improvement, cost saving, or production result is asserted here. Any future benefit estimate should follow a measured baseline and a reviewed pilot, including the effort required to correct outputs and handle exceptions.
A focused next step
Agree one workflow, one accountable owner, a limited source set, and a review protocol. Use the first prototype to identify data gaps and operational changes, then decide whether additional integrations are justified.