Surface critical exceptions early. Route action with ownership. Deliver governance-ready decision briefs.
Generic AI tools don't understand asset criticality, OT/IT boundary discipline, or the operational cadence of a control room running 24/7. They generate alerts the operators ignore — because the cost of a false escalation in critical infrastructure is higher than the cost of missing a signal.
The Energy Operations Agent is built for one operational function, against that function's reliability targets, by a firm whose primary practice is diagnosing why AI fails in regulated environments. It detects anomalies with operational context, classifies severity against asset criticality, routes action with named ownership, and produces governance-ready decision briefs the control room and the regulator can both audit.
Phase 1 demo available: a working prototype on simulated telemetry, no production OT system access, in 4–6 weeks.
"Alert volume is the silent killer of operational reliability. When everything is urgent, nothing is. The Energy Operations Agent reduces the alert flood to the signals that genuinely matter — with the context attached and the named owner identified." The pattern across Australian energy operations
A transformer winding temperature spike fires at 3:14am during a tropical storm. Manually, the on-call engineer is paged but spends the first 15 minutes building context — pulling weather, asset history, work-order records, and trying to determine whether this is a degradation pattern or a one-off.
The Energy Operations Agent contextualises the spike within 30 seconds — weather correlation flagged, asset history shows similar pattern in 2024 storm, no planned-maintenance window active. Severity: HIGH. The on-call engineer's pager fires at 3:14:38am with the full context, recommended action (immediate load reduction + dispatch field crew to substation by sunrise), parts likely required, and the named maintenance lead who is being notified in parallel.
Outcome: The on-call engineer makes a decision in minutes, not 30 minutes. Field crew is on the road before the operator finishes the briefing call. Customer impact is contained.
A subtle deterioration pattern develops across 47 transformers in a single network region over six weeks — small enough that no individual asset trips an alert, but a clear trend in aggregate. Manually, this kind of pattern surfaces only at the quarterly asset health review, by which point one or two assets have already failed.
The agent tracks every asset in scope continuously, identifies the cross-fleet trend within the first two weeks, classifies the severity as STANDARD with a strong trend indicator, and surfaces the pattern to the Asset Integrity Manager with a recommended inspection programme — 47 assets prioritised, parts likely needed, recommended sequence.
Outcome: The trend is caught before any asset fails. The inspection programme is planned and resourced — not reactive. The cost of preventative maintenance is a fraction of the cost of an unplanned outage.
An unusual telemetry pattern fires on a substation control circuit during a scheduled maintenance window. On its face, it looks like a routine work-order side-effect. Manually, the control room logs it and moves on. Two weeks later, the SIEM correlates the pattern with a sophisticated probing attempt detected on the corporate network.
The agent correlates the anomaly with concurrent IT/OT SIEM data in real time, identifies the pattern as security-flavoured rather than operational, and routes it through the security playbook to the IT/OT Security Lead — not the maintenance team. The maintenance work order is suspended pending security review. Full audit trail captured automatically.
Outcome: A potential security event is identified within minutes, not weeks. The IT/OT Security Lead sees the full operational context — not just the network signal — and responds with both perspectives at hand.
Most agent builds skip phase one (no mission alignment), compress phase two (assumed workflows, not observed ones), and have no equivalent of phases four and five (built and released without the people who will use it ever signing off).
The Mycelium build loop is slower than the market default. The slowness is the point.
Fixed fee, ex GST. Optional Sustained Alignment Retainer ($3,500–$8,500/month) available post-release for quarterly mission re-alignment, CPS 230 obligation updates, drift monitoring, and governance review.
Every Energy Operations Agent is released to broader use only after three sign-offs.
This is what separates a managed build from a deployed tool. The agent is not finished when the code is written. It is finished when the people who will use it have signed off on what it does, what it doesn't do, and how its performance will be reviewed.
The Program Managers and analysts who will use the agent daily sign off that it works as expected, handles edge cases responsibly, and the CPS 230 flag logic aligns with your compliance obligations.
The function owner signs off on scope, governance cadence, performance measures, compliance boundaries, and the explicit list of what the agent will and will not do.
The budget holder receives the executive briefing, confirms the scope and risk envelope, reviews the CPS 230 compliance approach, and authorises broader release.
60 minutes with you and your executive sponsor. We assess whether an Energy Operations Agent build — or a Phase 1 demo — is the right move for your situation. And we tell you if it is not.