tenex.sonar
What your team notices reaches the people running the business.
tenex.sonar is a Human Sensor Network: people across the operation make situations visible that transaction systems may never record. Demand for an unavailable size, a machine stopped during the coffee harvest, or a recurring objection on property visits gains context. With its own intelligence, Sonar connects reports and helps management choose what to check, investigate or prioritize.
tenex.sonar
Demand that did not become a sale
Illustrative demonstration · fictional data
A request the sales system never saw.
Received
A new report has arrived
- Source
- Store 01
- Information type
- Demand without a sale
- Next step
- Identify the product and reason
Demand becomes visible, even without a sale.
Purchasing learns of a request that might otherwise stay in an associate’s memory. Product, store and source travel with the record so the team can check it before interpreting it as demand.
Sources and agent work1
Behind this step
A sales associate reports what did not reach the checkout.
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- R01Store 01 · Monday
A customer asked for the XPTO running shoe in size 44. That size was unavailable.
Speech becomes comparable information.
Ready for review
Structured report
- Product
- Running shoe
- Model / size
- XPTO · 44
- Reported reason
- Size unavailable
Reports management can compare.
Product, size and location become organized for comparison. The team spends less effort reconstructing messages and can distinguish a complete record from information that still needs confirmation.
Sources and agent work1
Behind this step
Sonar structures the report and keeps its source attached.
- Source retained
- Report R01 · Store 01
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- R01Store 01 · Monday
A customer asked for the XPTO running shoe in size 44. That size was unavailable.
A pattern becomes visible across stores.
Signal to evaluate
Unfulfilled demand · XPTO 44
- Grouped reports
- 5
- Stores reporting
- 4
- Shared issue
- Size unavailable
A recurring issue for purchasing to investigate.
Reports from different stores help assess a local shortage or a broader signal. Five reports do not establish five unique customers; the evidence remains available for review.
Sources and agent work5
Behind this step
Reports about the same item are grouped for evaluation.
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- R01Store 01 · Monday
A customer asked for the XPTO running shoe in size 44. That size was unavailable.
- R02Store 02 · Monday
We had a request for the XPTO in size 44. The customer did not complete a purchase.
- R03Store 03 · Tuesday
Size 44 of the XPTO model was missing during a customer interaction.
- R04Store 01 · Wednesday
Another report about the missing XPTO 44. The customer’s identity was not recorded.
- R05Store 04 · Wednesday
Someone asked for the XPTO in size 44. It was unavailable at the store.
The evidence reaches the right team.
Human evaluation
Purchasing team’s review queue
- To evaluate
- Stock, distribution and replenishment
- Owner
- Purchasing team
- Basis for evaluation
- Reports linked to their stores
A queue of opportunities with evidence.
Purchasing receives the reports supporting each signal and can prioritize availability checks. Replenishment, stock transfers and assortment changes still depend on business evaluation.
Sources and agent work5
Behind this step
Purchasing reviews the context before making a decision.
- Purchasing decision
- Not yet made
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- R01Store 01 · Monday
A customer asked for the XPTO running shoe in size 44. That size was unavailable.
- R02Store 02 · Monday
We had a request for the XPTO in size 44. The customer did not complete a purchase.
- R03Store 03 · Tuesday
Size 44 of the XPTO model was missing during a customer interaction.
- R04Store 01 · Wednesday
Another report about the missing XPTO 44. The customer’s identity was not recorded.
- R05Store 04 · Wednesday
Someone asked for the XPTO in size 44. It was unavailable at the store.
The interruption arrives from the people in the field.
Incomplete context
Report received
- Activity
- Coffee harvest · crew 2
- Reported start
- 09:00
- Ask the crew
- Equipment and plot
Waiting becomes visible.
Coordination receives the issue while work is underway. A follow-up identifies equipment and location without asking the crew to repeat the whole report.
Sources and agent work1
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- C01Harvest crew report
The machine on coffee crew two has stopped again. The team has been waiting since nine.
The report gains equipment and location.
Cause still unknown
Report organized
- Equipment
- C-07
- Location
- Plot 12 · crew 2
- Reported status
- Crew waiting since 09:00
The responsible team knows where to check.
Location, equipment and time become comparable with other records. The observation stays linked to its source, with diagnosis kept separate from what the crew actually reported.
Sources and agent work2
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- C01Harvest crew report
The machine on coffee crew two has stopped again. The team has been waiting since nine.
- C02Team follow-up
It is harvester C-07 in plot 12. We do not yet know why it stopped.
Two reports point to the same context.
Reports, not a diagnosis
Recurring issue to investigate
- Reports
- 2
- Shared context
- C-07 · plot 12
- To check
- Cause and required action
History helps prioritize attention.
Coordination sees the recurrence without searching scattered messages. The team can investigate the shared context without treating two reports as proof of a mechanical cause.
Sources and agent work3
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- C01Harvest crew report
The machine on coffee crew two has stopped again. The team has been waiting since nine.
- C02Team follow-up
It is harvester C-07 in plot 12. We do not yet know why it stopped.
- C03Earlier report
Yesterday, another report described C-07 stopping in plot 12. No diagnosis is recorded.
The issue reaches the people coordinating the work.
Human assessment
Coordination queue
- Owner
- Field coordination
- Evaluate
- Maintenance and crew allocation
- Pending confirmation
- Action and resumption of work
Frontline observations help set priorities.
Management receives the reported facts and the coordination task. It can evaluate maintenance and work allocation with sources at hand, without assuming losses or unreported production.
Sources and agent work4
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- C01Harvest crew report
The machine on coffee crew two has stopped again. The team has been waiting since nine.
- C02Team follow-up
It is harvester C-07 in plot 12. We do not yet know why it stopped.
- C03Earlier report
Yesterday, another report described C-07 stopping in plot 12. No diagnosis is recorded.
- C04Coordination rule
Group reports by equipment and location. Coordination evaluates maintenance support and crew allocation; do not infer cause, loss or missed production.
A report arrives while work is underway.
Partial production
Production report received
- Product
- Tifton hay
- Location
- North Barn
- Reported quantity
- 3 full stacks
The record starts close to the work.
Information moves on for processing without closing a production order.
Sources and agent work1
Behind this step
Partial production is reported by the people doing the work.
- Situation
- Harvesting in progress
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- A01Field report
We stored three full stacks of Tifton hay in the North Barn. Harvesting is still in progress.
A local rule interprets the quantity.
Needs review
Interpreted quantity
- Original report
- 3 full stacks
- Rule applied
- 40 bales per stack
- Calculated quantity
- 120 bales
The calculation has a traceable source.
This conversion applies only to this example’s configuration; each operation defines its own rule.
Sources and agent work2
Behind this step
The conversion is visible and can be inspected.
- Production state
- Partial
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- A01Field report
We stored three full stacks of Tifton hay in the North Barn. Harvesting is still in progress.
- A02Rule configured for this example
In this example’s North Barn, one full stack equals 40 bales. This rule depends on the operation; it is not a universal conversion.
An ambiguity reaches the supervisor.
Supervisor’s choice
Production report review
- Quantity to assign
- 120 bales
- Location
- North Barn
The uncertainty is made explicit.
Select an order to see how the record moves into the next step.
Choose the production order and check sources3
Which order matches the report?
The supervisor must confirm the association.
Behind this step
Two orders can match the same location. Human context resolves the association.
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- A01Field report
We stored three full stacks of Tifton hay in the North Barn. Harvesting is still in progress.
- A02Rule configured for this example
In this example’s North Barn, one full stack equals 40 bales. This rule depends on the operation; it is not a universal conversion.
- A03Available orders in the example
OP-014: Tuesday harvest. OP-018: Thursday harvest. Both permit storage in the North Barn.
The office sees what was reviewed.
Record for review
Production follow-up
- Reported quantity
- 120 bales
- Production
- Partial · harvesting in progress
Management can follow records and open items.
This demonstration does not close an order or write data to an ERP.
Sources and agent work3
Behind this step
The report keeps its link to the source, the rule and the supervisor’s choice.
- Next task
- Office review and export
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- A01Field report
We stored three full stacks of Tifton hay in the North Barn. Harvesting is still in progress.
- A02Rule configured for this example
In this example’s North Barn, one full stack equals 40 bales. This rule depends on the operation; it is not a universal conversion.
- A03Available orders in the example
OP-014: Tuesday harvest. OP-018: Thursday harvest. Both permit storage in the North Barn.
Inspection captures what the team found.
Received from the field
Inspection issue
- Location
- Tower B · unit 304
- Component
- Bedroom window
- Reported evidence
- Photo linked to the report
The observation stays with the unit.
The inspection finding gains a location and source. Coordination can find the issue without relying on someone’s memory of the visit or an isolated message.
Sources and agent work1
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- I01Inspection report
During inspection in tower B, the bedroom window in unit 304 did not close properly. A photo is attached to the report.
Location and component become comparable.
Cause not determined
Issue ready for review
- Unit
- 304 · B
- Type
- Window closing
- Next check
- Technical assessment of the component
Less work to reconstruct the inspection.
The description is organized without replacing the team’s observation. Engineering can check the component, unit and source before determining cause or responsibility.
Sources and agent work2
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- I01Inspection report
During inspection in tower B, the bedroom window in unit 304 did not close properly. A photo is attached to the report.
- I03Follow-up rule
Relate reports by component and tower while retaining unit details. Engineering evaluates cause and responsibility; service follows the correction and reinspection. Do not conclude there is a widespread defect.
A recurring issue becomes visible in the tower.
Recurrence to investigate
Context for engineering
- Records
- 2 reports · 2 units
- Shared issue
- Bedroom window · tower B
- Not concluded
- Shared cause or widespread defect
Reports help guide the investigation.
Engineering sees the shared context and can assess other units when appropriate. The recurrence is a signal to investigate, accompanied by the reports supporting it.
Sources and agent work3
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- I01Inspection report
During inspection in tower B, the bedroom window in unit 304 did not close properly. A photo is attached to the report.
- I02Second team report
Unit 504, tower B: bedroom window adjustment pending. The cause has not been checked.
- I03Follow-up rule
Relate reports by component and tower while retaining unit details. Engineering evaluates cause and responsibility; service follows the correction and reinspection. Do not conclude there is a widespread defect.
Technical assessment has a clear queue.
Assessment and follow-up pending
Coordination view
- Engineering
- Assess cause and responsibility
- Service
- Follow correction and reinspection
- Closure
- Requires team confirmation
Management follows actions and open items.
Each team receives the context needed for its work. Coordination can follow the correction without turning the initial report into an automatic diagnosis or conclusion.
Sources and agent work3
Fictional records created to explain this scenario.
- I01Inspection report
During inspection in tower B, the bedroom window in unit 304 did not close properly. A photo is attached to the report.
- I02Second team report
Unit 504, tower B: bedroom window adjustment pending. The cause has not been checked.
- I03Follow-up rule
Relate reports by component and tower while retaining unit details. Engineering evaluates cause and responsibility; service follows the correction and reinspection. Do not conclude there is a widespread defect.
FROM START TO NEXT STEP
How the work happens.
- 01
Listen
Receives observations from the front line while preserving the original report and its source.
- 02
Organize
Identifies the product, location, activity and time; asks for missing details needed to interpret the situation.
- 03
Connect
Compares reports in the business context, highlights recurring patterns and separates confirmed information from open issues.
- 04
Coordinate
Presents signals and their evidence to purchasing, field coordination or the agreed owner.
What is in scope
- Voice or text participation from people across the operation
- Report interpretation using its own intelligence and business context
- A history of observations, recurring patterns and open issues for management
- Review steps, owners and connections defined for each application
Outside the scope
- Automatically converting reports into lost sales, financial losses or technical diagnoses
- Assuming purchasing, maintenance or system integration without agreed rules and access
How we implement
- Choose the situation the team observes and the decision it should support
- Define participants, context, clarification steps and accountable owners
- Test reports and put the first application into operation within 30 days
- Track signal quality and expand with the team based on usefulness
Frequently asked questions
Is Sonar just a transcription tool?
Voice is one way to participate. Sonar has its own intelligence to interpret and connect reports, recognize recurring patterns and organize what needs an accountable person’s attention.
Does Sonar need tenex.brain?
They are independent products. Sonar organizes and interprets its reports with its own intelligence. An application can share information with other systems or products when that is part of the scope.
How does demand without a sale help purchasing?
The report preserves the product, model, size and store even when there was no transaction. With this history, purchasing can investigate availability, distribution and replenishment. Reports do not automatically equal unique customers or lost sales.
How does it work in the field?
People can report activities and incidents, such as a stoppage during the coffee harvest or stored hay. The workflow organizes the location, time and reported quantity, asks for clarification and brings open issues to field coordination.
What if the team has no signal?
Sending requires a connection. An audio message waiting in WhatsApp can only be processed after it arrives.
Do the examples show customer results?
Website demonstrations use fictional data to explain the work. Each application agrees on sources, rules and assessment criteria with the business.