Giveaway, attenuation variance, CO2 per batch, PU and energy, trial batches, line balance. Each is a loop a beverage plant already measures, and each is where one Brewira agent starts.
Illustrative scenario: Plant run · one lager batch from brewhouse to can · brewhouse, cellar, filler, tunnel pasteurizer. Not a measured run.
No result is claimed here. Each card names the number a pilot would baseline in shadow mode from your own lab, checkweigher, meters and QA records.
Fillers over-fill to avoid low fills, so every container carries giveaway. Vision that feeds the filler lets the fill sit at target instead.
Baseline: Fill giveaway per container and per shift; low-fill and leaker rejects by attributed cause
The highest-variance step in the plant, managed by hand from spot gravity readings. The curve is predicted and held; the craft is captured as a model.
Baseline: Attenuation variance against target, tank time, downgraded batches per strain and tank
Fixed dosing corrected after spot checks over-gasses product and spends CO2 blindly. Inline fusion holds CO2 and clarity to spec with the minimum gas.
Baseline: CO2 consumed per batch, off-spec and clarity rejects, filter changes
Fixed cycles over-process to stay safe. The PU profile is held and logged; the energy below it is the lever, and the CCP is never the variable.
Baseline: Energy and water per hectoliter on pasteurization and CIP, PU margin held, audit-prep time
Plants validate a recipe by running it. The twin simulates it as-produced first and hands the plan to the agents.
Baseline: Trial batches per launch, time to launch, materials and line hours spent on trials
Sequenced on the GPU under line, tank, product and sanitation constraints, and rebalanced when the plant is disrupted.
Baseline: Takt attainment, changeover time, water and energy per hectoliter, CIP windows placed in cheap energy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goal, plan, thought, action, observation, exactly as the orchestrator would record it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gates, not dates. Each stage starts when the previous one has proven its number against your own baseline.
Brewira is recruiting three to five design partners for the first cohort. These are the beverage types the products were designed around and where each would start.
Brewhouse to can at scale: gravity, attenuation and fill. Starting wedge: Fermix on one cellar or Sealix on one filler.
Carbonation and high-speed filling across proliferating SKUs. Starting wedge: Carbyn on a carbonation skid, Sealix on the filler.
Fill level, cap and label at the fastest line speeds. Starting wedge: Sealix.
Pasteurization, stability and fill. Starting wedge: Pastura on a pasteurizer, with Sealix on the filler.
Launch cadence and recipe changes. Starting wedge: Cuvera for new-SKU planning, Carbyn and Sealix on the line.
Many brands, many packages, one line. Starting wedge: Sealix, with Pastura where the product is pasteurized.
A filler runs tens of thousands of containers an hour and over-fills every one of them to avoid a low fill, because a low fill is a reject and an over-fill is only money. The lever is fill-level vision that feeds the filler so the average sits at target. The baseline is giveaway per container and per shift, from your own checkweigher.
Brewing, carbonation, pasteurization and CIP are among the most water-, energy- and CO2-intensive steps in food and beverage, run with margin because an under-processed or flat batch is worse than a wasteful one. The lever is holding the spec and the PU profile and taking the resource below them. The baseline is CO2 per batch and water and energy per hectoliter, from your own meters.
A qualified pilot targets one line where giveaway, leakers, carbonation drift, contamination risk or water and energy loss create measurable margin or recall exposure, and justifies the $14,000 per line per month entry price from verified savings or avoided risk.
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 |
The numbers Brewira is engineered against, from the GPU utilization plan.
Design targets from the GPU utilization plan, all marked aspirational in the architecture. Nothing on this page is a measured plant result; measurements start when the first design-partner line runs in shadow mode.
Two agents will want the same actuator. The orchestrator arbitrates on the run goal, with food safety above everything, and the handoff is logged like any other step.
Yield-and-Takt wants more belt speed through the tunnel pasteurizer so the filler is not held back and the shift meets takt.
Pasteurize-and-CIP requires the belt speed that keeps every container inside the validated PU profile. That is the HACCP critical control point.
Food safety outranks takt under every run goal. The critical control point wins the actuator; the request for more speed is logged with its score and the reason it lost.
Yield-and-Takt recovers the schedule by pulling the next changeover earlier and shifting the CIP window instead. Takt is met without touching the CCP.
Nothing about a Brewira run is implicit. The goal is declared, the plan is rehearsed on the twin, each step is typed, and the outcome is written to the batch genealogy.
A run starts as a goal, becomes a plan, and executes as a graph of typed steps. The active path is always visible, always logged, always reversible.
Shadow, assist, bounded, exceptions. Each plant sets the stage per loop, and anything above the threshold, every critical control point and every release decision waits for a named person.
The three people in a beverage plant whose week changes when the process runs itself, and what each of them needs from Brewira.
Owns production rate, quality, loss, giveaway and yield, water and energy, and food safety. Wants a plant that holds spec at higher rate with fewer interventions, and a number that justifies the spend.
Owns recipes, brewhouse and blend, fermentation and carbonation process windows and yield. Approves and corrects the agents in assist mode; those corrections train the models.
Owns product quality and safety under HACCP, FSMA, FSSC 22000 and BRCGS, contamination and fill and seal conformance, and batch genealogy. Needs every action grounded, cited and written to an immutable record.
IT/OT and sustainability leads approve the deployment. There are no customer quotes on this site yet; design partners will speak for themselves when they choose to.
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
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.
| 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.
One policy model, one audit trail and one set of yield, loss, giveaway, water and energy benchmarks across every plant in the group, with each site's recipes and tolerance models kept private to that site.
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.
One line, one KPI, shadow mode first. Bring the line that costs you the most.
↑↓ navigate↵ openesc close
