This is an illustrative worked example. At a composite semiconductor business we'll call Sable Microsystems, an engineering change to an RF power amplifier board means weeks of chasing. An engineer opens the ECR in ENOVIA 3DEXPERIENCE, then spends days walking the BOM by hand, emailing five departments, collating replies in a spreadsheet, and rebuilding a risk table from memory. What follows is how the same change runs end to end inside the WorkStream, using Veroli as the front door and VeroCortex agents doing the work underneath.
The problem wasn't the analysis. It was the assembly of it.
Sable's change board never doubted the engineering judgment. What slowed them down was everything around it: finding which items a change touches, knowing who owns them, getting scoped answers instead of "looks fine to me," and proving afterwards that the record in PLM matches what was actually decided. The EC Impact Analysis WorkStream turns that assembly work into six governed stages.
Day 1 · 08:40
Stage 1. The ECR arrives and scopes itself
Dana doesn't fill in a form. She states the change in plain language. The Intake Agent reads ECR-4471 straight out of 3DEXPERIENCE, pre-populates the intake record, and proposes the two fields the ECR never carried: target effectivity and regulatory class, inferred from the last three thermal changes on the same platform.
Day 1 · 08:52
Stage 2. Twelve minutes to a context dossier
The Context Agent walks the BOM instead of Dana. Eleven levels down, it returns 34 affected items, 6 open work orders, 2 supplier agreements, and 4 qualification records, each one resolved to an owning function. Two items fall outside Dana's division, so they route separately rather than dying in a group inbox.
Day 1 · 09:15
Stage 3. Five scoped questionnaires, not one blast email
This is where the old process leaked. A single "please review" email to a distribution list produces vague replies and no accountability. The Stakeholder Agent instead drafts one questionnaire per owner, each asking only about the items that person actually owns, with a named due date. Replies land back in the workstream, and the agent chases anything still open after 24 hours.
Day 2 · 14:20
Stage 4. The risk register writes itself, with scores
All five responses were back inside 27 hours. The Analysis Agent turns them into a scored register: severity, occurrence, and detection multiplied into an RPN, with anything above Sable's threshold of 100 escalated and given a named owner and a mitigation. Every line cites the response or record it came from.
Day 3 · 10:05
Stage 5. Sign-off on evidence, not on trust
The change board doesn't receive a PDF summary and a request for goodwill. Each signer sees the claims, the RPN math, and a link from every claim back to the source record in the Execution Ledger. Three signatures landed in seven minutes.
Day 3 · 10:11
Stage 6. Write-back, then proof that it wrote back
The last mile is the one most automation skips. The PLM Agent moves ECR-4471 to Approved in 3DEXPERIENCE, attaches the impact analysis, and stamps the change note on all 34 affected items. Then it re-reads ENOVIA and reconciles the result field by field, so "the system was updated" is a verified claim rather than an assumption.
What the WorkStream changes
Nothing here replaces ENOVIA, and engineers are not asked to work differently. The coordination moves out of inboxes and spreadsheets and into a governed WorkStream that runs on top of the PLM system already in place.
- No manual BOM traversal. In this scenario, 11 levels and 34 affected items are resolved by the Context Agent.
- Scoped questionnaires instead of broadcast emails. Each stakeholder is asked only what their discipline can answer.
- Verified write-back. Every PLM update is reconciled field by field, with an immutable ledger entry behind it.
The engineering judgment stays exactly where it belongs, with the engineers. What the WorkStream takes on is the assembly work that sits around it.
