Updated: Jul 23, 2026 • 2 min read
Monitor post-install solar service issues
Find stalled solar projects before customers, installers or finance teams escalate them. This workflow turns a recurring review into a clear exception queue and a reviewable first draft.
Why this workflow breaks
Data is usually available, but it is split across CRM, project management system, permit records, installation schedule, supplier orders, inspection status, utility activation data, and service tickets. Teams spend their deadline collecting exports, reconciling definitions, and rewriting the same narrative. By the time the summary is ready, the owner has less time to act.
A useful workflow does not remove the operations director, installation manager, project manager, or finance lead from the decision. It prepares current evidence, makes uncertainty visible, and assigns the next action.
Data to connect
Start with read-only access to the approved source systems. For each input, document the source of truth, reporting period, owner, refresh schedule, and any known coverage gaps. If two sources disagree, show the conflict instead of silently selecting one value.
Metrics and signals
- ticket type and severity
- equipment and installer
- time to resolution
- repeat issue rate
- warranty or service cost
Apply thresholds only when they lead to a defined action. A status label without evidence or an accountable owner becomes noise.
What the Agent should produce
The Agent should prepare an executive summary, a ranked exception list, source timestamps, comparisons with the relevant prior period or plan, and a named next action for every material item. It should separate reported facts from interpretation and list missing data explicitly.
Example Agent instruction
"Update the monitor post-install solar service issues report on the agreed schedule. Reconcile the approved source data, compare each material metric with its prior period, plan, or threshold, and rank exceptions by operational and financial impact. Include source dates, supporting records, missing data, and a recommended owner. Do not make external changes or present assumptions as facts."
Keep the first output internal until the owner confirms that calculations, definitions, and narrative match the existing review process.
Implementation workflow
- Connect approved sources through Connectors or use controlled exports.
- Define the metric, threshold, reporting period, owner, and expected decision for each signal.
- Run one historical period alongside the current manual report.
- Correct mapping and ownership issues before scheduling.
- Deliver the recurring internal draft in a Document.
- Keep external communication and high-impact actions behind human approval.
- Review evidence, timing, and source failures in Logs.
Review checklist
- The source period and definitions are complete.
- Every material number reconciles with the approved source.
- Comparisons use the correct baseline.
- Exceptions include evidence and an owner.
- Sensitive information reaches only authorized recipients.
- Narrative distinguishes evidence from recommendation.
How to measure success
Track preparation time, on-time delivery, exception lead time, false-positive rate, and the percentage of outputs approved without major correction. The workflow is successful when the owner starts with evidence and decisions instead of data collection.
Next step
Test this workflow with one completed reporting period, validate the source mapping, then schedule the internal report. Book a demo to map it to your stack.