Intelligent intake / practical guide
An inspector reports corrosion at a test station. Someone downloads the photograph, copies the email into a ticket, and asks who should review it. That manual transcription delays the work before the first decision.
LatchWorkflow can create the ticket as a connected inspection form or email arrives. The record carries the submitted context into the Triage Queue. Configured AI recommendations can then help the reviewer prepare the next action.
Follow one findingThis illustrative example starts with a connected mailbox. The same review pattern can begin with a configured inspection form.
1 / Submitted evidence
TS-14 cabinet: corrosion observed at the terminal. Photograph and survey export attached. Engineering review requested.
The sender, subject, message, and supported attachments are the intake context. A model does not have to invent a finding to create the record.
2 / Automatic creation
With automatic email intake enabled, an accepted new message becomes a ticket. Its title comes from the subject, its description preserves the message, and evidence is associated with the ticket.
The queue makes the finding available for review. Creating the ticket does not mean the engineering assessment or corrective action is complete.
3 / Intelligent preparation
When enabled and configured, AI recommendations can use the ticket text, notes, linked assets, and audit history to propose a next step. The reviewer compares that proposal with the source evidence.
The recommendation is decision support. Qualified people interpret the inspection, and configured approval rules control consequential plugin actions.
For email, configure the inbound address or mailbox integration and enable automatic ticket creation. Hosted intake and on-premises mailbox intake use different connections; choose the path that fits the deployment.
For structured inspections, configure an active Latch form with the relevant fields, issue type, default priority, and tag. Accepted submissions create tickets in the Triage Queue. A form can carry an asset association and preserve configured issue fields, reducing the context an operator has to reconstruct later.
Use the CP inspection form checklist to agree the test-point identity, measurement context, evidence, and review fields. Connecting an existing field app requires a form or API integration; exporting a file from that app does not connect it automatically.
Scheduled maintenance is another source of automatic tickets. Configured schedules can create recurring work for matching assets. This is useful for planned visits; it is distinct from receiving a new field finding.
Useful automation keeps the context needed for the next decision. Latch can associate an inbound message with existing work, use configured sender-domain mappings and intake defaults, and put a new finding into a reviewable ticket.
The AI layer works from that record when recommendations are configured. A reviewer can see the suggested action, record feedback, and decide what should happen. Recommendation availability and quality depend on the model, provider, and context supplied. Automatic intake does not depend on the model producing an answer.
Keep these three events distinct: ticket created, recommendation reviewed, and action completed. The cathodic protection workflow shows how evidence, a stored approval request, and a returned work-order reference fit together.
A field team needs to know whether its submission arrived. Preserve the original source and inspect the processing result. A form submission can be saved while ticket creation or attachment processing is still pending; an intake receipt alone is not proof that all evidence reached the finished ticket.
Relevant replies can attach to existing work after thread and sender checks. Email loop suppression and message deduplication reduce repeated intake, while messages that need attention can remain available for operator review. These checks do not mean every repeated photograph or differently worded report will be recognized as the same defect.
Test one new finding, a reply, a repeated submission, and an incomplete record with your actual intake configuration. Confirm the ticket reference, source fields, attachments, review state, and any failure that needs an owner.
Once the reviewer accepts the finding, assign the next step and retain the decision on the ticket. If the workflow creates a work order in an integrity or maintenance system, connect that action through a configured plugin and apply the required review policy.
A successful handoff should leave the returned work-order reference with the inspection record. A failed handoff should remain visible for follow-up. Neither an AI recommendation nor an approved request proves that the external action ran.
Continue with the inspection audit trail workflow and synthetic CP survey walkthrough. The public report builder is useful for preparing a standalone document; it does not submit evidence or create tickets.
What starts automatically, what needs configuration, and what remains a review decision.
Yes. With the inbound integration configured for automatic ticket creation, accepted new messages can create tickets in the Triage Queue. Relevant replies can join existing tickets after thread and sender checks. Messages that cannot be processed normally may need operator review.
No. Configured email and form intake creates the ticket. AI recommendations are a separate capability that must be enabled and connected to a configured model or recommendation provider. The intake record remains useful without an AI recommendation.
That is not a built-in guarantee of the intake path. An attachment can remain evidence on a ticket. Extracting observations from a PDF, interpreting instrument exports, or splitting a report into separate findings requires a configured extraction or integration workflow and validation.
No. The public inspection report builder prepares PDF and JSON files locally in your browser. It does not send the report or create a ticket. Connect a Latch form, inbound mailbox, or an authenticated integration when you want automatic intake.
Bring an example form or email, the fields reviewers need, and the system that receives corrective work. Map the automatic intake and approval steps together.