No invented case studies. Real evidence of real engagement.
We’re pre-pilot, so we won’t fabricate outcomes. What we can show is genuine domain engagement and a concrete, published plan for how we’ll prove the platform works.
Problems we’re built for - documented, not invented
Beyond pipeline corridors, the same evidence-to-decision problem shows up wherever inspection has meant scaffolding, mobile platforms, or rope access. Each of these is grounded in published research, not a claimed result.
Pipeline corridors
Right-of-way patrol and encroachment monitoring across long linear corridors, where visual-line-of-sight rules make ground patrol slow and expensive.
How encroachment monitoring worksRefineries & terminals - scaffolding and rope access
Flare stacks, elevated structures, and tank shells traditionally require scaffolding, mobile platforms, or rope-access teams working at height. Drone survey absorbs much of that evidence-gathering, cutting both cost and the hours a person spends at height.
Storage tank & terminal drone inspectionOffshore platforms
Splash zones, underdecks, and flare booms sit among the most hazardous routine inspection work in the industry - historically rope-access teams working at height over open water. Screening by drone means rope hours are fewer, and better targeted.
Offshore platform drone inspectionConfined-space tank entry
Internal tank inspection has historically meant gas-freeing, ventilation, and a person entering a confined hydrocarbon space under standby rescue cover. Collision-tolerant indoor drones now capture that evidence without an entry at all.
How internal tank inspection changedA field visit to a live pipeline construction site
Understanding the inspection problem from a slide deck is not the same as standing on a right-of-way. We visited an active gas pipeline construction site to see how the corridor is actually built and monitored.
Right-of-way conditions, the practical constraints on repeat access, and where operational data already exists but sits disconnected from inspection decisions. The hard part is downstream of data collection - exactly where Sentrix is aimed.
Evidence of serious domain engagement, not a product outcome. We are not claiming a result here - we are showing our understanding is grounded in the field, the honest foundation a pilot has to be built on.
Here’s exactly how we’ll prove this works - and we’ll publish results either way
Rather than a case study we don’t yet have, here is the sequence that will produce real ones. It cross-links to the detailed methodology on our research page.
Testing our claims
Testing the claims published on our approach page with practising engineers: whether prioritisation changes decisions, whether cycle-over-cycle comparison is reliable enough to trust, whether engineers act on evidence-backed findings, and the time saved per cycle.
Controlled field validation
Repeat-flight change-detection trials on a bounded, instrumented section, with ground-referenced surface changes to characterise detection and false-positive rates honestly.
Operator pilot
A scoped pilot with a gas transmission or CGD operator on a real segment of network, measured against their existing inspection workflow. Results published either way.
Want to be the first real case study?
We’re looking for a pilot partner willing to run Sentrix against a real segment of network and publish what happens - good or bad.