Challenge our
case model.
We've built a case-preparation and review workspace for UK SORA SAIL III/IV applications — twenty routed work items, five human decision gates, controlled exports, and AI assistance that is off by default. Before anyone relies on it, we want one experienced UK SORA consultant — ideally with an RAE(F) contact — to try to break it.
One email thread · no forms · no marketing list
The ask
Break it, then pilot it.
The applicability routing — are the default operator / consultant / RAE(F) / CAA routes right for a real case?
The evidence granularity — do the work items match how evidence is actually assembled and referenced?
The review-gate language — do the five human gates record what a competent reviewer would actually sign?
The export shape — is the Markdown/JSON brief something you could genuinely work from?
Then one controlled pilot: a real case taken from the official portal result through Assessment 1 and 2 preparation, recording where the workspace saves time and where it creates noise. Until a specialist has done this, we describe the workspace as an internal preparation tool — not a proven consultant or regulatory service.
What you'd be challenging
The 20-item routing model.
Rendered from the live workspace data — this list cannot drift from what the product actually does. Every item carries a named owner, route, evidence reference, source pointer and review trace.
Assessment 1 evidence · 13 items
Overview of operation
OperatorDefine the operation that every later evidence item must support.
Maximum distance for VLOS or BVLOS with visual mitigation
Consultant reviewReference the calculation, testing and controls supporting the claimed distance.
Rotary-wing swarm operations within VLOS
Consultant reviewIf applicable, index the swarm concept, scaled procedures and safety evidence.
Make and model of unmanned aircraft
Consultant reviewIdentify the exact aircraft configuration and its source technical evidence.
Operational volume and ground risk buffer
Consultant reviewIndex the calculations and geospatial files defining the operation's bounds.
Maximum population density of the intrinsic ground-risk class (iGRC) footprint
Consultant reviewReference the actual dataset, footprint and method used for the maximum value.
Average population density of the adjacent area
Consultant reviewRecord the adjacent-area method and nearby assemblies evidence where applicable.
Dangerous goods
Consultant reviewIf applicable, index the separate dangerous-goods evidence and application material.
Dropping or delivery of articles
Consultant reviewIf applicable, reference the release-system evidence and operational controls.
Ground-risk mitigations
Consultant reviewIndex actual evidence for each mitigation selected in the official process.
Claiming a lower air risk class
Consultant reviewIf claimed, reference the official ARC inputs and operation-specific reduction evidence.
Atypical Air Environment
Consultant reviewIf claimed, index the geometry, proximity evidence and controls keeping the aircraft inside it.
Strategic mitigations for a lower residual ARC
Consultant reviewIndex each selected mitigation, its control mechanism and supporting agreement or dataset.
Assessment 2 requirements · 6 items
Applicable-requirements and evidence matrix
Consultant reviewMap the requirements shown by the official service to a compliance approach, evidence owner and controlled source.
Operations Manual evidence
Consultant reviewIndex the controlled manual sections used as evidence and keep separate technical evidence separately referenced.
Flightworthiness assessment route
RAE(F) if requiredRecord whether the selected mitigations, containment requirements or OSOs trigger an RAE(F) assessment and report.
Containment evidence route
RAE(F) if requiredMap each applicable containment requirement to evidence and the correct operator, consultant or RAE(F) review route.
TMPR and Detect and Avoid engagement
CAA contact if requiredRecord the air-risk approach and any CAA engagement needed for technical TMPR or Detect and Avoid requirements.
Findings and controlled changes
OperatorTrack each CAA or reviewer comment to its response, changed source, version and operator acceptance record.
Manual portal entry · 1 item
Manual portal-entry checklist
OperatorReconcile the controlled bundle with the official service before the operator performs the manual submission.
The five human gates · no AI action completes one
AI preparation record
Owner: Preparer
Consultant review record
Owner: Consultant
RAE(F) report record
Owner: Operator / RAE(F)
Operator acceptance record
Owner: Operator
Manual portal-entry control
Owner: Operator
Role separation
Who does what — and what stays human.
Operator / applicant
Owns the case, enters facts, accepts drafts, appoints advisers, submits through the official service.
Remains responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the application.
Drone Ready AI (off by default)
Indexes supplied material, maps requirements to evidence, finds missing metadata and contradictions, drafts source-linked text and reviewer questions.
Cannot calculate the official SAIL, judge robustness, accept evidence, close findings or submit.
Consultant / specialist
Reviews operational reasoning, applicability, evidence strategy and portal-ready narrative; requests changes and records a controlled review.
Is never represented as a CAA or RAE(F) decision unless the person or entity actually holds that role.
RAE(F)
Assesses the flightworthiness requirements within its CAA-recognised scope and issues the applicant a flightworthiness report.
Drone Ready and an ordinary consultant cannot imitate or replace this assessment.
CAA
Determines the application result, issues findings and grants or refuses the operational authorisation.
No product output predicts or substitutes for that decision.
Interested? It's one email.
Any commercial referral relationship will be disclosed to operators, and appearing on the CAA's support-provider information list is not CAA approval or endorsement — of us or of anyone. The workspace stays local to the operator's browser; nothing is shared without their recorded consent.
finsmith100@gmail.comOr explore first: the readiness scan · the process guide