Connectors
Brewhouse and cellar PLC and SCADA, analyzers, filler and seamer, pasteurizer and CIP, inspection, lab, MES, cameras and meters: what is read, what can be written, and how allow-lists and limits are declared.
Documentation
Everything needed to run, extend and audit the platform.
Documentation is provided to design partners with the deployment. This page describes what it covers so a plant can judge the depth before signing anything.
Illustrative scenario: Plant run · one lager batch from brewhouse to can · brewhouse, cellar, filler, tunnel pasteurizer. Not a measured run.
Getting started
The first hour
- Inventory the line. Systems, tags, feeds and the access each needs.
- Bring up the edge node. Line-edge runtime, connectors in read-only mode.
- Declare the policy. Stage per loop, allow-lists, limits, approvers.
- Open the review console. See predictions beside lab, checkweigher and QA results in shadow mode.
Reference
Reference sections
The agent loop
Sense, reason, act with human checkpoints: how a run is planned, how the policy engine evaluates each write and how exceptions escalate.
Review console
Approving, correcting and annotating recommendations; how corrections become training events.
Audit log and genealogy
The immutable record of every reading, recommendation, write, approval and release, and how it maps to HACCP, FSMA, FSSC 22000 and BRCGS records.
Model management
Versioning, per-plant validation, evaluation gates in CI, rollback, and the router that picks the model for each step.
Autonomy policy
Declaring the stage per loop, the tag allow-list, rate and magnitude limits and the named approvers.
Cuvera
Twin formats, calibration against as-produced batches, plan and envelope search, and how synthetic scenarios are validated.
Deployment
Line-edge runtime, cloud or private-cloud training loop, on-prem option, tenant isolation.
Developers
Every action is a record
There is no SDK to download yet. What design partners get is the integration surface: connectors, an autonomy policy declared per loop, and an audit record for every reading, recommendation, write and approval. This is the shape of one record, illustrative.
What the surface gives you
- Connectors to PLC and SCADA, inline analyzers, lab systems, MES, cameras and meters, with declared allow-lists and limits
- An autonomy policy per loop: stage, tags, rate and magnitude limits, named approvers
- Citations on every recommendation to the recipe, spec or procedure it relied on
- Model versions named in every record, with rollback by version
- Export of the audit log and batch genealogy to your quality system
// one write, as the audit log would hold it
{
"run": "run_scn_01",
"step": "fill.seal",
"agent": "agent.fill_seal",
"stage": "bounded",
"action": { "tool": "plc.write_setpoint", "tag": "FIL1.VALVE_14" },
"limits": { "max_step": "declared per tag", "per": "declared per tag" },
"evidence": ["vision.stream", "filler.read_telemetry"],
"citation": "spec:CAN-330 fill-level v3 §2",
"policy": "permitted",
"models": { "fill_level": "versioned", "policy": "versioned" },
"human": null,
"outcome": "on target level · inside approved window"
}
Run timeline
Reading a run record
Every Brewira run is an ordered, inspectable sequence. This is run_scn_01, an illustrative scenario: Plant run · one lager batch from brewhouse to can · brewhouse, cellar, filler, tunnel pasteurizer. Scenario complete · batch inside spec · one human approval at the pasteurizer.
run_scn_01
scenario · not measured
SUCCEEDED
-
01
order.receive
SUCCEEDED
0.8 s
Plant Orchestrator · Pulled the recipe, the package spec, the HACCP plan with its pasteurization critical control point, the yeast lot record and the standing CIP window from the beverage MES and the lab system; locked the target envelope for the run.
-
02
twin.simulate
SUCCEEDED
38 s
Plant Orchestrator · Simulated 24 candidate brew, fermentation and carbonation plans on the Cuvera as-produced twin; ranked them on gravity margin, predicted finish time, CO2 target, PU margin, takt and CO2 and energy use, and discarded every candidate that thinned the pasteurization margin.
-
03
brew.blend
SUCCEEDED
2 m 40 s
Brew-and-Blend · Held wort gravity to recipe from the inline gravity analyzer and the brewhouse PLC, trimming the blend and utilization setpoints inside the recipe window rather than correcting after a spot lab check.
-
04
ferment.control
SUCCEEDED
5 d 06 h
Ferment-and-Yeast · Predicted the attenuation curve and finish time for the tank from inline gravity, dissolved oxygen and CO2, pH and temperature; held the temperature ramp and timed the crash inside the brewmaster-approved window; no stuck or runaway fermentation was flagged.
-
05
carbonate.dose
SUCCEEDED
3 m 15 s
Filter-and-Carbonate · Fused inline CO2, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature and pressure; held carbonation to the package target with the minimum CO2 and timed the filter backwash from the predicted loading instead of a fixed schedule.
-
06
fill.seal
SUCCEEDED
continuous
Fill-and-Seal · Adjusted fill valves toward the target level inside the approved window using drift feedback from inspection, and ran seam checks on the seamer; the filler corrected upstream instead of rejecting downstream.
-
07
inspect.line
SUCCEEDED
continuous
Defect-and-Inspect · 16 camera streams at the line edge: fill level, seam and cap, label and date code, foreign body and container checks on every can; three low-fill rejects were attributed to one filler valve and Fill-and-Seal corrected it.
-
08
pasteurize.verify
SUCCEEDED
continuous
Pasteurize-and-CIP · Held the tunnel pasteurizer on the validated PU profile at the lowest zone energy inside the envelope; every critical control point reading was written to the audit log against the HACCP plan and the CIP release checks were armed.
-
09
approve.human
APPROVAL
1 m 52 s
Plant Orchestrator · The lowest-energy candidate wanted to move the pasteurizer CIP into a window that overlapped the next brand's start. Held for the shift quality manager, who kept the validated PU profile untouched and approved the CIP move with a tighter release check.
-
10
release.genealogy
SUCCEEDED
1 m 05 s
Quality-and-Conformance · Batch released: gravity and attenuation curves, yeast lot, CO2 and clarity, fill and seal outcomes, inspection rejects, PU readings, CIP release and every human decision written to the batch genealogy and checked against spec.
Tool calls
Reading the tool log
Every tool invocation, argument and result is written to an immutable, human-readable log, and every reasoning step is expandable. Nothing about a run is hidden from the plant. The log below is the scenario run, not a measured one.
- 04:50:02mes.read_order({ batch: "L-0931", brand: "LAGER-33", package: "CAN-330" })
- 04:50:02ok recipe locked · HACCP plan v6 · CCP: tunnel PU 15–20
- 04:50:03lab.read_results({ yeast_lot: "Y-2207", test: "viability" })
- 04:50:03ok viability inside window · lot accepted for pitching
- 04:50:04twin.simulate({ candidates: 24, horizon: "batch" })
- 04:50:42ok best plan #7 · PU margin held · lowest CO2 and energy per hl
- 04:50:43policy.evaluate({ plan: 7, stage: "bounded" })
- 04:50:43ok 7 writes permitted · 1 write requires human approval
- 04:50:44plc.write_setpoint({ tag: "BH1.BLEND_RATIO", basis: "gravity+recipe" })
- 04:53:24ok wort gravity on recipe · utilization held
- 05:10:00ferment.predict_curve({ tank: "FV-12", lot: "Y-2207" })
- 05:10:00ok attenuation curve predicted · finish day 5 · crash timed
- 05:10:01plc.write_setpoint({ tag: "FV12.TEMP_RAMP", window: "brewmaster_approved" })
- 05:10:01ok ramp applied · no stuck or runaway ferment flagged
- 06:02:10plc.write_setpoint({ tag: "CARB1.CO2_DOSE", basis: "co2+do+turbidity" })
- 06:05:25ok CO2 on package target · clarity inside spec · backwash timed
- 06:05:26vision.stream({ cameras: 16, models: ["fill_level", "seam_cap", "label_ocr", "foreign_body"] })
- 06:31:48reject: low fill · can 20417 · attributed to filler valve 14 drift
- 06:31:49defect.attribute({ event: "low_fill", cause: "filler.valve_14" })
- 06:31:49ok fill_seal notified · valve 14 trimmed inside window · two more rejects, then clean
- 06:31:50plc.verify_pu({ tag: "TUN1.ZONES", profile: "validated" })
- 06:31:50ok PU inside profile · readings → audit log
- 06:31:52approval.request({ action: "cip.window", reason: "overlaps next brand start" })
- 06:33:44ok approved by the shift quality manager · PU profile untouched · tighter release check
- 09:12:30mes.release_batch({ batch: "L-0931", genealogy: "full" })
- 09:13:35ok batch released · scenario complete
Reasoning trace
Goal, plan, thought, action, observation, exactly as the orchestrator would record it.
GoalBrew batch L-0931 to recipe gravity, ferment it to target atte…
Brew batch L-0931 to recipe gravity, ferment it to target attenuation, carbonate and fill it to spec at line speed, pasteurize it on the validated PU profile and release it with full genealogy.
PlanSimulate the whole batch on the twin first. Lead with gravity …
Simulate the whole batch on the twin first. Lead with gravity so the cellar gets the right wort and the filler gets the right CO2. Verify the pasteurization critical control point continuously. Let the filler chase target level only inside the approved window; hold anything beyond the envelope for a human.
ThoughtThe standing practice over-fills to avoid low fills and over-g…
The standing practice over-fills to avoid low fills and over-gasses to avoid flat product. With continuous fill-level estimation and inline CO2 the filler and the carbonator can sit at target. The saving is giveaway, not safety margin: the pasteurization CCP is never a candidate for optimization.
Actiontwin.simulate(candidates=24) → plan #7: gravity on recipe, fin…
twin.simulate(candidates=24) → plan #7: gravity on recipe, finish day 5, CO2 at package target, PU margin unchanged, lowest predicted CO2 and energy per hectoliter.
ObservationPlan #7 wants the pasteurizer CIP in a window that overlaps th…
Plan #7 wants the pasteurizer CIP in a window that overlaps the next brand's start. The policy engine routes that single move to the shift quality manager and permits the other seven writes.
ActionExecute plan #7 at the bounded stage: brewhouse blend, tank ra…
Execute plan #7 at the bounded stage: brewhouse blend, tank ramp, CO2 dosing and fill-valve writes proceed; PU is verified continuously; the CIP move waits.
ObservationApproval granted at 06:33:44 with the PU profile untouched and…
Approval granted at 06:33:44 with the PU profile untouched and a tighter CIP release check. Three low-fill rejects were attributed to filler valve 14 and corrected by Fill-and-Seal inside the approved window.
OutcomeScenario complete. The batch is released with gravity and atte…
Scenario complete. The batch is released with gravity and attenuation curves, yeast lot, CO2 and clarity, fill and seal outcomes, PU readings, CIP release and the human decision in the genealogy. No measured plant result is claimed; this is the run the platform is designed to execute.
Operations
Runbooks
Edge node loss
What the plant sees, what keeps running (everything, on existing control), how the node rejoins and how the gap is recorded in the audit log.
Model rollback
Rolling a loop back to a previous model version, re-validating against the lab and the checkweigher, and recording the reason.
Stage change
Moving a loop between shadow, assist and bounded, the gates required and who signs.
Limits
Platform limits and defaults
| Item | Limit or default |
|---|---|
| Writes | Only to tags on the plant's allow-list, inside declared rate and magnitude limits, at the declared autonomy stage |
| Critical control points | Read and verified, never written; PU profiles and CIP release checks included |
| Release decisions | Prepared by the conformance agent, taken by a person |
| Models per tenant | Design target of 20 to 60 deployed versions, with canary rollout and rollback |
| Edge decision latency | Design target of under 100 ms for rejects, under 250 ms for drift alerts |
| Tenant isolation | Per-plant data, memory and models; cross-plant learning only federated and IP-isolated |
Autonomy
Four stages, set per loop
A plant does not go from manual to bounded control in one step. Brewira makes the stage explicit per loop, auditable and reversible at any time, and some decisions never leave the person.
| Stage | What the agent does | What the person does | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shadow | Predicts gravity, attenuation, carbonation, fill and seal faults, contamination and takt; writes nothing | Runs the plant as today; compares predictions to lab, QA and PLC outcomes | First phase with every design partner |
| Assist | Recommends bounded brew, fermentation, carbonation, fill and seal, pasteurization and CIP moves with the evidence | A brewmaster, process engineer or quality manager approves or rejects each one | After accuracy is proven against the baseline |
| Bounded | Writes low-risk filling, carbonation and inspection setpoints inside documented recipe, quality, food-safety, equipment and rollback limits | Approves anything above the limits; reviews the shift record | After the food-safety and ROI gates agreed up front |
| Exceptions | Escalates anything outside its envelope, CCP-adjacent moves and release decisions | Always decides these; the agent never does | Permanent |
Guardrails
An agent that can move a setpoint needs a leash
Brewira writes to production equipment in a food plant. Every capability is scoped, every write is policy-checked, every output is cited, and every action is written to an append-only audit log the plant owns.
- Bounded action space. Each agent can only write to an explicit tag allow-list, inside per-tag rate and magnitude limits, at the autonomy stage the plant has set.
- Critical control points are read, never written. Pasteurization units, CIP release checks and batch release decisions stay with the HACCP plan and the people who own it.
- Policy engine before every write. Autonomy stage, interlock state, product, shift and operator presence are evaluated before a setpoint moves.
- Grounded and cited. Every recommendation carries a citation to the recipe, spec or procedure it relied on. Retrieval is tenant-isolated and permission-aware.
- Immutable audit log. Append-only, exportable and retained on the plant's own storage, aligned to HACCP, FSMA, FSSC 22000 and BRCGS record-keeping.
- Hard fallback. If the edge node, the network or a model stops, the plant keeps running on its existing PLC and SCADA control and interlocks.
- Tenant and IP isolation. Recipes, supplier data and tolerance models never cross a customer boundary. On-prem deployment available.
Assurance posture
| Item | Scope | Status |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 Type I | Cloud control plane | QUEUED Roadmap, first 6 months |
| SOC 2 Type II | Cloud control plane | QUEUED Roadmap, 6 to 12 months |
| HACCP · FSMA · FSSC 22000 · BRCGS | Grounding and record-keeping | RUNNING Design basis for retrieval and the audit log |
| Per-tenant isolation | Data, memory, models | RUNNING Design rule |
| On-prem deployment | Recipe-sensitive producers | RUNNING Design option |
Brewira supports your food-safety records. It is not a certification and it does not replace your HACCP plan.
Integrations
It speaks plant, not cloud
Brewira reads and writes through the systems already on the floor. No parallel historian, no new HMI, no rip-and-replace. Connectors are built against each design partner's stack first; long-tail integrations are out of scope for the first release.
PLC and SCADA of brewhouse, blending and syrup systems, fermentation tanks and yeast handling
Setpoint reads, guarded writes, interlocks untouched
Filtration and carbonation skids and their inline CO2, dissolved-oxygen and turbidity analyzers
Continuous carbonation and clarity state
High-speed filler, seamer and capper controls
Telemetry in; fill-valve and seam settings inside approved windows
Tunnel and flash pasteurizers, CIP skids and hygiene sensors
PU readings verified and logged; CIP release checks
Multi-camera stations for fill level, seal and cap, label, foreign body and container defects
Frames, defect events, reject commands
Orders, recipes, product specs, batch genealogy, LIMS results
Targets in, release records out
Plant and asset meters; Isaac-driven pack, case and palletizing cells
Hard constraints for scheduling; bounded handling
SSO and role-based access; SOC 2 on the roadmap
Named approvers, scoped roles
FAQ
Straight answers
The questions plant directors, brewmasters and quality managers ask in the first meeting.
Only at the autonomy stage your plant has set, and only to an explicit allow-list of low-risk loops inside documented limits. Every design partner starts in shadow mode, where Brewira predicts and writes nothing. Assist mode follows, where a brewmaster or process engineer approves each recommendation. Bounded autonomy on filling, carbonation and inspection loops comes after the food-safety and ROI gates agreed up front.
Critical control points are not optimization variables. The pasteurization PU profile, the CIP release checks and the batch release decision stay with your HACCP plan and your people. Brewira verifies readings, writes them to an immutable audit log and attaches them to the batch genealogy. It is grounded in HACCP, FSMA, FSSC 22000 and BRCGS procedures; it is not a certification and does not replace your plan.
Brewira sits above your existing automation as a supervisory layer. If it stops, the plant keeps running on its current PLC and SCADA control and the interlocks it already has. A Brewira outage degrades the plant to the way it runs today, not to a stop.
The first phase is shadow mode on one line: Brewira reads your analyzers, PLC history, lab results and MES while you run the plant as usual, and we measure its predictions against your lab, QA and PLC outcomes. Recommendations start when accuracy is proven against that baseline, and improve as plant-specific history and brewmaster corrections accumulate.
Recipes, product specs, tolerance models and supplier data are tenant-scoped and never used to train another customer's models. Retrieval is multi-tenant isolated and permission-aware. Cross-plant learning, where a customer opts in, is federated and IP-isolated. On-prem deployment is available for producers protecting sensitive recipes.
You are, the same as with any control strategy. That is why every write is policy-checked, bounded, logged and reversible, every output carries a citation to the recipe or procedure it relied on, and anything above your threshold waits for a named approver. The audit log records the request, the reasoning, the limits applied and the human decision.
As a design partner, on one line, with one hard metric: fill giveaway and low-fill rejects, leaker and seal faults, attenuation variance and tank time, CO2 use and clarity rejects, or water and energy on pasteurization and CIP. We instrument the line in shadow mode, measure the baseline, move to assist mode when accuracy is proven, and expand only when the number holds.
Full multi-module autonomy across the whole plant, long-tail integrations beyond the design partners' stacks, and self-serve onboarding. The first release is one wedge workflow, its connectors, the agent loop with human checkpoints, the review console and the assurance-grade food-safety audit log.
Get started
Get documentation access
Documentation ships with a design-partner deployment. Ask and we will walk you through it first.