Why Infrastructure Review Uses Specialist Lenses

A site can look attractive under one discipline and weak under another. The answer is not to stage a simulated debate. The answer is to define each review lens, use the relevant sources, and keep unresolved trade-offs visible.

Route the question to the relevant method

A compute-price question needs provider quotes and purchase terms. A power question needs utility, tariff, queue, and site evidence. A contract question needs the executed agreement. Routing keeps the prompt and required sources specific to the request.

One specialist does not own the decision

The selected specialist prepares analysis for its domain. It does not resolve legal, engineering, credit, and operating questions outside that domain. The output should name missing sources and handoff questions instead of inventing a complete answer.

Preserve disagreement as a review item

A lower compute price can depend on a region with a later power date. A favorable tariff can include a minimum-payment obligation. Record both observations and the assumption that connects them. The reviewer decides which constraint controls the case.

What the run record needs

• The user's question and selected specialist
• The prompt and method version
• The source records and their dates
• The structured output and missing-source list
• The reviewer, decision, and approval time

Measure quality with reviewed cases

More specialists do not prove a more accurate answer. Compare outputs against reviewed cases with defined criteria: source support, correct calculations, complete constraints, and useful uncertainty. Publish a performance number only when the test set, evaluator, and result are available.