Why “Standard” Isn’t Standard: Testing Interpretation in Engineering Workflows

Everyone talks about SOPs like they’re set in stone. But what if the real issue isn’t the steps… it’s how engineers read them?

Same Task. Same Manual. Different Outcomes?

We’re currently running an internal experiment: assign the exact same hydraulic calculation task to multiple engineers — using nothing but the official Operations Manual.

No extra context. No clarifications. Just: "Here’s the manual. Go."

And we’re tracking what happens next.

What We’re Watching

We’re not just measuring time. We’re analyzing:

• 🔍 Which steps are followed — and which are skipped

• ⏱ How long it takes to complete the task

• 📄 Whether outputs are consistent, accurate, and properly cited

• ❓ Where confusion arises or errors occur

This test isn’t about catching mistakes. It’s about identifying interpretation friction — where the manual may assume too much or explain too little.

Why This Matters for Engineers

In high-speed project environments, even minor misinterpretations can lead to delays, rework, or inconsistent deliverables.

This experiment is part of our commitment to:

• Build faster, clearer workflows

• Eliminate ambiguity in AI-integrated engineering

• Improve onboarding and training efficiency

By pressure-testing our SOPs, we’re making sure they scale across different brains — not just experienced ones.

What’s Next?

We’re still collecting data. But early signs suggest this kind of testing should be part of every engineering company’s process documentation review.

Want to see the full results and insights?

📌 Subscribe here: https://www.singularityengineering.ca/general-4