ILLUSTRATIVE SOURCE01
Qualification record
sample-record.pdf · Page 1
- Record reference
- DEMO-PQR-01
- Supporting test reference
- Blank in this example
Synthetic document excerpt.
No welding parameters are provided.
← All AI projects / Welding workspace
From PQRs
Welding workspace · In development
From PQRs
to WPS drafts.
With the source
in sight.
An AI-assisted workspace for welding engineers and fabrication teams. We're building it to reduce repeated data entry and make the path from qualification record to procedure draft easier to review.
See the planned workflowPRODUCT STUDY / 001CONCEPT
01 / SOURCEPQR
A record.
Not a blank page.
Qualification details
Test references
Source context
Original record stays in view
02 / DRAFTWPS
A starting point.
Not a sign-off.
Engineer review required
Not a live product or an approved welding procedure.
FOR
Welding & fabrication teams
INPUT → OUTPUT
PQR → Reviewable WPS draft
CURRENT STAGE
In development · Not yet available
01 / The problem we're working on
The same details.
One more document.
Preparing a welding procedure involves more than writing a new document. The engineer needs to find the relevant qualification records, carry information into a draft, and check that the proposed procedure is supported.
Our focus is the document work around that judgement: re-entering information, tracing it back to the original, and spotting what still needs checking.
We're developing our own software product for welding engineers, fabrication businesses and quality teams—not an outsourced procedure-writing service.
02 / How we plan to approach it
Bring the evidence
along for the review.
One connected workflow, from the original qualification record to a draft that an engineer can examine and revise. These are planned capabilities, not a live service.
- 01
Read the PQR
Bring Procedure Qualification Records into the workspace. Use AI-assisted document extraction to organise information without losing the original record.
Intended output / Structured source information - 02
Expose what needs checking
Keep extracted information linked to its source. Flag missing or conflicting inputs so the reviewer can resolve them, rather than silently filling in the gaps.
Intended output / Traceable fields & review flags - 03
Prepare a WPS draft
Use reviewed inputs to prepare a Welding Procedure Specification draft. A qualified engineer checks the source evidence, applicable requirements and proposed procedure before approving any use.
Intended output / A draft, not an approval
03 / A small, illustrative example
A missing reference
should stay visible.
This invented example shows how we intend to carry source information into review. It is not a working AI demo, a customer document, or a usable WPS.
PLANNED REVIEW VIEW02
Keep the gap in the draft.
The reference is carried forward; the missing evidence remains an open review item.
Source PQR referenceDEMO-PQR-01Source: page 1 ↗
Supporting test referenceNeeds engineer review
No reference supplied in the sample. Do not infer one.
WPS draft remains unapproved
This preview illustrates information handling only. It does not establish qualification ranges, assess code compliance or authorise welding work.
04 / The boundary that matters
AI can assist.
It cannot sign off.
Human verification is part of the product direction, not a disclaimer added at the end.
The original is the reference
Extracted text and generated content can be wrong. The intended review flow keeps the source record available for comparison.
Uncertainty is a review task
Missing or conflicting information needs resolution. A plausible-looking answer is not a substitute for supporting evidence.
Approval stays with the engineer
We do not claim automatic certification or guaranteed compliance. A qualified professional must check the draft against the relevant records, requirements and intended use.
05 / Where things stand
Building the first
useful version.
The product is in development. Public access, supported standards, launch timing and pricing have not been announced.
PRODUCT SCOPE
PQR-to-WPS draft preparation
Our first focus: extraction, traceability, missing-input checks and engineer review.
PLANNED VALIDATION
Evaluate before making claims
Extraction quality, unsupported outputs, review usability and handling of incomplete records are areas we plan to test.
OPEN CONVERSATION
Learn from real workflows
We welcome feedback from welding engineers and fabrication teams about the paperwork they handle and the parts that take the most effort.
A few practical questions
Before you ask.
Can I upload a PQR or use the software now?
Not yet. This website describes the product we are developing and does not accept document uploads. Contact us to discuss the planned workflow or ask about future availability. Please do not send confidential or customer documents in an initial enquiry.
Which welding codes or standards will it support?
The initial supported scope has not been announced. We will identify the applicable standards and editions when support has been implemented and evaluated. This page does not claim compliance with any specific code.
Will the software approve or certify a WPS?
No. The intended output is a draft for professional review. A qualified engineer remains responsible for verifying the source evidence, suitability and applicable requirements before any use or approval.
Who is building it?
ANKA STUDIO LLC, an independent software company registered in New Mexico in 2026 and founded by Fatih Güngör. This is our first product focus. You can contact the founder directly at [email protected] or view his LinkedIn profile ↗.
Help shape the workflow
You know the paperwork.
We'd like to hear about it.
For welding engineers, fabricators and quality teams interested in the product. Tell us what is repetitive, difficult to trace, or easy to miss.