Auto Repair Integration Manual
Developer guidance for integrating DecisioQ service scheduling, technician assignment, estimates, parts, warranty, quality, customer communication, and shop performance decisions.The Auto Repair sector in the DecisioQ Decision Catalog is identified by AUTO-REPR. It currently covers 73 decision types across service operations, diagnosis and estimation, technician and bay allocation, parts procurement, warranty, compliance, quality assurance, pricing, customer communication, digital operations, and business performance.
DecisioQ integrations should load sector, category, decision, Decision Preparation Model, scenario, criterion, and decision overview metadata from the Decision Catalog. Do not hard-code old static decision lists or legacy request models.
DecisioQ should not replace shop management systems, estimating systems, warranty adjudication rules, payment systems, or legally required compliance checks. It should support explainable business decisions around ranking, routing, prioritization, exception handling, and audit-ready recommendations.
Auto repair client applications should use the same discovery flow as the Business Decision Studio:
- Load
GET /decisioncatalogthrough the approved server-side Decision Catalog gateway. - Populate Sector from
catalog.sectors[]and selectAUTO-REPRfor Auto Repair. - Populate Category from
selectedSector.categories[]. Example categories include Service Operations, Diagnosis & Estimation, Resource Allocation, Parts & Procurement, Warranty & Compliance, Quality Assurance, Customer Communication, Shop Operations, and Business Performance. - Populate Decision from
selectedCategory.decisions[]when available, or call/decisioncatalog/sectors/{sectorCode}/categories/{categoryCode}/decisions. - Display Decision Name only in the dropdown while keeping
decisionIdas the option value. - Load full decision detail from
/decisioncatalog/decisions/{decisionId}before rendering Guided Data Collection.
For regional deployments, keep DecisioQ technical identifiers stable and localize only user-facing labels and guidance. Unless the selected endpoint and decision schema explicitly support unit-qualified input, convert mileage, distance, pressure, temperature, mass, volume, speed, fuel consumption, and other measurements to the required canonical units before submission. Do not infer units or currency from locale.
| Category | Decision Count | Representative Decisions |
|---|---|---|
| Customer Communication | 11 | Allocate Loaner Vehicle, Determine Customer Communication Priority, Determine Service Recovery Offer |
| Business Performance | 8 | Evaluate Mobile Service Feasibility, Evaluate Shop Performance Improvement, Select Expansion Service Line |
| Quality Assurance | 7 | Approve Quality Rework, Approve Vehicle Release, Prioritize Quality Inspection |
| Diagnosis & Estimation | 6 | Approve Repair Estimate, Authorize Diagnostic Time, Prioritize Estimate Review |
| Service Operations | 6 | Approve Same-Day Repair, Prioritize Repair Job, Determine Service Capacity Action |
| Digital Operations | 5 | Evaluate Digital Check-In Adoption, Prioritize Online Estimate Request |
| Parts & Procurement | 4 | Approve Parts Order, Prioritize Parts Fulfillment, Select Parts Supplier |
| Workflow | Business Question | Systems Involved |
|---|---|---|
| Repair job prioritization | Which repair orders should move first based on urgency, promised time, parts readiness, labor capacity, customer impact, and profitability? | Shop management, scheduler, repair order, customer communication, parts inventory |
| Technician assignment | Which technician or team is the best fit for a job based on skill, certification, workload, availability, diagnostic complexity, and quality history? | Technician roster, labor guide, certifications, dispatch board, time clock |
| Estimate and diagnostic review | Which estimate, supplement, diagnostic request, or additional work item should be approved, revised, escalated, or declined? | Estimating, inspection, diagnostic platform, service advisor workflow, customer approval |
| Parts procurement | Which supplier, part option, or fulfillment path should be selected based on availability, cost, quality, fitment, delivery time, and return risk? | Parts catalog, vendor APIs, inventory, purchase orders, repair order lines |
| Customer communication | Which customers need proactive updates, loaner allocation, escalation, discount, or service recovery action? | CRM, SMS/email platform, repair status, service advisor queue, loaner fleet |
| Quality and release | Which completed repair should be released, rechecked, road-tested, escalated, or routed to quality review? | QC checklist, technician notes, inspection result, comeback history, customer handoff |
Auto repair integrations should map repair order, estimate, vehicle, technician, bay, parts, warranty, customer, quality, and scheduling data into decision-specific Business Data. The selected decision detail defines which criteria are required and how each value should be measured.
| Business Data Source | Common Use | Integration Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Repair order data | Concern, cause, correction, labor lines, promised time, status, customer approval, total estimate | Use stable repair order IDs and separate factual values from recommendation outcomes. |
| Vehicle and diagnostic data | VIN, mileage, DTCs, inspection findings, severity, safety condition, repeat concern | Normalize diagnostic severity and safety risk values before ranking options. |
| Technician and bay data | Skill, certification, availability, current workload, efficiency, comeback rate, bay type | Refresh close to execution time for assignment and dispatch decisions. |
| Parts and supplier data | Availability, delivery ETA, cost, quality grade, warranty, fitment confidence, return risk | Keep source, price, and ETA units consistent across candidate parts or suppliers. |
| Customer and communication data | Customer value, wait status, loaner need, communication preference, complaint risk, retention risk | Use only decision-relevant customer signals and protect sensitive data. |
| Quality and compliance data | QC checklist, inspection result, warranty policy, regulatory inspection status, release readiness | Keep hard compliance rules authoritative and use DecisioQ for prioritization and review routing. |
Do not invent criterion IDs. Use the canonical criteria returned by /decisioncatalog/decisions/{decisionId}, including criterion overview metadata, unit, direction, scale, and data guidance.
- Authenticate through the approved server-side identity flow. Browser pages should not directly handle credentials.
- Load the Decision Catalog and let the user choose Sector, Category, Decision, Decision Preparation Model, and Scenario.
- Load decision detail and render Guided Data Collection from returned criteria.
- User or system prepares Business Data for candidate repair orders, technicians, suppliers, estimate actions, loaner options, quality actions, or shop improvement initiatives.
- Call
POST /api/v1/validateto validate and prepare the decision input before execution. - Call
POST /api/v1/decideto return the authoritative Decision Result. - Display recommendation, ranked alternatives, warnings, assumptions, and Explanation of Decision Result.
- Keep execution trace and diagnostics collapsed by default for developer and integrator review.
The exact fields depend on the selected Auto Repair decision. The example below shows the integration style rather than a guaranteed schema for every decision.
{
"decisionId": "AUTO-REPR-005",
"decisionPreparationModelId": "AUTO-REPR-PROFILE-STANDARD",
"scenarioId": "AUTO-REPR-SCENARIO-TECHNICIAN-ASSIGNMENT",
"businessData": {
"correlationId": "repair-dispatch-20260717-0915",
"repairOrderId": "RO-184210",
"vehicleVin": "1HGCM82633A004352",
"options": [
{
"optionId": "TECH-ALEX-M",
"label": "Assign Alex M.",
"values": {
"technicianReadiness": 92,
"skillMatchScore": 96,
"currentWorkloadScore": 74,
"qualityHistoryScore": 88,
"customerImpact": 79
}
},
{
"optionId": "TECH-JORDAN-K",
"label": "Assign Jordan K.",
"values": {
"technicianReadiness": 86,
"skillMatchScore": 89,
"currentWorkloadScore": 91,
"qualityHistoryScore": 82,
"customerImpact": 75
}
}
]
}
}
Call DecisioQ from a trusted backend service. Keep identity credentials, account verification, and service configuration outside public browser code.
async function executeAutoRepairDecision(jwtToken, preparedDecisionInput) {
const response = await fetch(`${process.env.DECISIOQ_BASE_URL}/api/v1/decide`, {
method: "POST",
headers: {
"Authorization": `Bearer ${jwtToken}`,
"Content-Type": "application/json"
},
body: JSON.stringify(preparedDecisionInput)
});
const payload = await response.json();
if (!response.ok) {
throw new Error(payload.message || "Decision execution failed.");
}
return payload;
}
- Use a guided decision selector: Sector, Category, Decision, Decision Preparation Model, and Scenario.
- Show Selection Overview for sector, category, and decision metadata so business users understand the decision before entering data.
- Render Guided Data Collection from criterion definitions and show criterion overview summaries where available.
- Display Decision Name in selectors and show the selected
decisionIdseparately for developers and integrators. - For service advisor, dispatch, parts, quality, and manager workflows, keep screens focused on recommendation, reason, required action, warnings, and next step.
- Keep execution trace and diagnostics available to integrators but collapsed by default.
- Never expose internal proxy URLs, service credentials, signing keys, or account verification details in browser code.
- Confirm repair decisions support the right shop type, service line, labor model, warranty policy, parts strategy, and customer segment.
- Validate Business Data before execution and show user-friendly validation messages.
- Persist correlation ID, repair order ID, VIN, customer ID, technician ID, bay ID, supplier ID, decision ID, profile ID, scenario ID, selected option, score, and explanation for audit.
- Retain the successful decision response
requestIdwith the host business transaction, then callPOST /api/v1/decision-outcomeswhen the action and realized result are known. - Require an
overrideReasonfor overridden recommendations; never infer acceptance merely because a result was displayed. - Monitor
GET /api/v1/decision-outcomes/summaryfor acceptance rate, override rate, and realized-value aggregates. Treat outcome feedback as reporting evidence, not automatic model training. - Keep safety, regulatory, warranty, payment, and authorization rules deterministic where required; use DecisioQ for multi-factor ranking, prioritization, exception, and recommendation decisions.
- Monitor preview failures, execution failures, account verification errors, timeout rates, and unexpected warning counts.
- Review Decision Preparation Models and scenario assumptions with service operations, dispatch, warranty, parts, quality, finance, and customer experience owners when policies change.
| Symptom | Likely Cause | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Category list is empty. | The catalog response does not include categories for the selected sector, or the client is reading an old category layer. | Use selectedSector.categories[] from /decisioncatalog. |
| Decision dropdown shows IDs only. | The client did not load decision detail or category decision names. | Display Decision Name as the label and keep decision ID as the option value. |
| Criterion guidance is missing. | Decision detail lacks criterion overview metadata or the page is not rendering it. | Read criterion overview from /decisioncatalog/decisions/{decisionId} and show available summaries. |
| Technician assignment seems stale. | Technician workload, skill availability, bay readiness, or parts status changed after input preparation. | Refresh dispatch and shop-floor context close to execution time. |
| Decision execution failed. | Decision API unavailable, invalid Business Data, authorization failure, or account verification issue. | Check response envelope, HTTP status, correlation ID, Decision API health, and server logs. |
| Unexpected recommendation. | Scale, units, direction, or values do not match catalog criterion guidance. | Compare Business Data fields against criterion overview and validation metadata. |
| Hard warranty or safety rule conflicts with recommendation. | The repair system mixed deterministic policy enforcement with a recommendation decision. | Apply legal, safety, warranty, and compliance rules first, then use DecisioQ for ranking and routing eligible options. |
