Automated planning is useful when it helps someone understand the available options. A suggestion needs enough context for the reviewer to examine its assumptions, change it and decide whether to use it.
For Aerlattice, we are treating calculation, suggestion and acceptance as distinct responsibilities.
Give a suggestion a visible basis
A changed departure time should be connected to the conflict it might resolve and the request’s permitted window. A detour needs to preserve the aircraft’s limits and any required waypoints. A convincing description alone cannot establish that either option works.
The checking rules therefore need to assess a proposed route independently of how it was generated. An algorithm or an AI model may suggest an option, but the route still has to be checked against the same planning constraints.
Make the reviewer’s choice clear
The interface should let someone inspect the findings and compare alternatives before accepting a route. A suggestion should remain visibly separate from the accepted plan while it is being considered.
This gives automation a clear role in the workflow: helping produce and examine options while keeping the act of accepting a plan explicit. It also gives us specific behaviour to test as the application develops.
