Logistics operations

Resolve the exception. Control the action.

Connect shipment signals to inventory, customer promises, and approved recovery plans.

Run the interactive demo Review the scenarios

NetSuite + WMS
SAP S/4HANA aATP
project44 / FourKites
Shopify
Carrier systems
Slack
Email

Simulated example. Fictional companies and records; no live connections or client results.

A late truck is only the beginning of the decision.

An ETA change matters when it affects an order commitment. The operator needs available stock, protected quantities, receiving windows, freight options, and authority to act. The workflow brings those records together before proposing a transfer, changing an allocation, or holding an unreliable update.

Shipment alerts arrive without the affected orders or warehouse constraints.
An expedite looks attractive until its arrival is compared with the outbound cutoff.
A replayed or stale carrier status can trigger an incorrect customer update.

Recover the promise: Compare transfer and expedite options against actual quantities, costs, and handoff times.
Keep inventory balanced: Use ERP availability rules to preserve existing commitments, protected supply, and quality holds.
Make uncertainty visible: Separate a proposed plan, a recorded write, and a physical delivery. Missing evidence keeps execution on hold.

Three decisions, with the source records.

Select a case to inspect the evidence, checks and proposed action.

A 47-hour inbound delay leaves an order 200 units short.

Recover a threatened customer promise

The delayed inbound cannot support tomorrow's customer delivery. A nearby warehouse can supply the shortage, but its existing commitments and protected stock must remain intact.

Order quantity: 240 units
Shortage: 200 units
Recovery freight: $620 incremental

Evidence behind the decision

Open a source to inspect its fields and timestamp.

project44 inbound ETA revisionproject44 / FourKites / SHP-60921 · PO-45001948 · eta-18

Inbound: 600 × KIT-AL400 to DAL-01
Previous ETA: September 14, 11:00 CDT
Revised ETA: September 16, 10:00 CDT
Delay: 47 hours

Carrier update: terminal congestion has delayed the scheduled linehaul.

Source snapshot: 2026-09-14 09:10 CDT

Customer order and outbound cutoffShopify / Shopify #10482 · SO-10482

Order: 240 × KIT-AL400 at $48; $11,520 order value
Destination: Austin, Texas
Delivery promise: September 15, 17:00 CDT
Required outbound handoff: September 15, 10:00 CDT

Source snapshot: 2026-09-14 09:09 CDT

Warehouse balancesNetSuite + WMS / KIT-AL400 · inv-32

DAL-01 uncommitted: 40 units
SAT-01 on hand: 340 units
SAT-01 existing commitments: 80 units
SAT-01 protected minimum: 60 units
Transferable quantity: 340 − 80 − 60 = 200 units; same subsidiary

Source snapshot: 2026-09-14 09:08 CDT

Transfer versus inbound expediteCarrier systems / Q-620 · Q-1850

Transfer Q-620: $620; SAT-01 pickup September 14 at 13:00
Transfer receipt window: DAL-01 September 14, 18:00–19:00 CDT
Inbound expedite Q-1850: $1,850; DAL-01 September 15 at 15:00 CDT
Existing outbound freight: $180; unchanged by transfer
Quote expiry: September 14, 11:00 CDT

Source snapshot: 2026-09-14 09:06 CDT

Recovery policy and warehouse windowNetSuite + WMS / LOG-POL-07 · plan revision 3

Stock rule: Preserve existing commitments and protected minimum
Dallas receipt cutoff: September 14, 19:00 CDT
Spend approval: Transportation manager required above $500
Plan authority: 200-unit transfer; incremental freight capped at $620

Fictional operating policy supplied for this scenario.

Source snapshot: 2026-09-14 09:10 CDT

Proposed action

Approve the 200-unit transfer with a $620 freight cap. The $1,850 inbound expedite cannot meet the cutoff. The customer promise still depends on carrier execution and warehouse receipt.

ReviewerTransportation manager · quantity, locations, and $620 cap

VerifiedProtected stock retained
VerifiedTransfer passes the cutoff check
VerifiedSame-subsidiary transfer
Needs review$620 requires approval

Run the workflow, inspect the proposed changes and make the review decision.

Try this scenario

How the workflow fits into the stack.

Inspect the source contracts, model responsibilities, approval rules and execution boundaries.

A system you can inspect.

Select a source or component to see its contract.

Reference architecture

Propose a bounded response

Model tool calling / Typed recommendations / Evidence references

The model interprets carrier explanations, identifies relevant records, and drafts a recommendation. It uses calculated availability and feasibility results rather than inventing inventory or arrival certainty.

Inputs

Evidence bundle
Feasible options
Operational policy

Outputs

Recommendation
Rejected-option explanation
Communication draft

Engineering controls

Read-only analysis tools
Structured output validation
No model-issued approval

What a production implementation includes.

The integration work, evaluation and operating controls behind the interface.

Map the operational contracts
Define shipment-to-order identifiers, inventory authority, timestamp semantics, carrier interfaces, and the customer's approval policy.
Implement the workflow and adapters
Build the event inbox, evidence retrieval, model-assisted recommendations, deterministic checks, and narrowly scoped execution tools.
Validate decisions and failure recovery
Evaluate representative exceptions, stock changes, missing evidence, approval boundaries, and ambiguous write responses before release.
Deploy with operational ownership
Deliver execution traces, exception queues, deployment configuration, runbooks, and an agreed process for integration and policy changes.

Release checks for this workflow
Test case	Expected behavior
Transfer stock and deadline constraints	Recommend 200 units at a $620 cap; retain 80 committed plus 60 protected at the source. Exclude the expedite that misses the cutoff.
Uncertain approved transfer response	Look up JOB-8421 / TO-3817 and return one existing receipt. No blind resubmission, duplicate transfer, or false received-stock update.
Allocation conservation	A270 + B200 + C170 = 640. Keep 120 held and 140 protected units outside the assignment; show C's 60-unit replenishment dependency.
Inventory changes before approval is applied	If 30 more units enter quality hold, assignable stock becomes 610 at revision 43. Reject the 640-unit plan and require another preview.
Duplicate, older, and stale carrier events	Ignore the duplicate delivery, retain conflicting evidence, and block every write when telemetry is 130 minutes old or POD is missing.
Decision scope and communication	Execute only the selected approved option. A draft, booking request, ERP transfer, physical receipt, and customer delivery remain distinct states.

Research behind the example.

Published deployments and technical documentation informed the design. These references are separate from Stacklane’s simulated build.

project44's deployed AI-agent portfolio
April 2026 vendor announcement: exception response, disruption management, and tracking-data repair. Vendor-reported adoption is not a Stacklane result.
FourKites customer and digital-worker example
FourKites identifies Coca-Cola shipment-inquiry automation. This supports the workflow category, not a claim that the simulated allocation was deployed there.
project44 webhook delivery and retries
Documents duplicate-safe receivers, ordered retry queues, and response-specific retry behavior. The conflicting older event here comes from a separate carrier feed.
NetSuite asynchronous idempotency
Documents identifying a previously submitted asynchronous request and its existing job. The demo reconciles the original operation before any further write.
SAP backorder-processing constraints
Explains availability rechecks after supply or demand changes. Actual confirmation behavior depends on the customer's SAP configuration.

Work with the lab

Bring us a research problem.

Tell us where the model falls short and what better performance would mean for your team.

Discuss your project