Why it matters
Without AI, WSIs risk delays due to missing sections, inconsistent sampling plans, or misaligned archive and curator requirements, leading to backlogs and compliance challenges.
From design to safety
Design
AI drafts WSI structure and aims
The AI reads site context, client brief, and regulatory requirements to assemble aims, research questions, and a draft methodology, flagging ambiguities for human refinement, and proposing alternative approaches where necessary.
- Context sheets binder
- Written scheme of investigation binder
- Plan drawing folder
Build
WSI integration into trench design
The AI maps WSI components to trench layouts, ensuring sampling and recording plans align with field procedures, monitoring data capture in real time, and linking to context sheets and recording sheets.
- Context sheets binder
- Plan drawing folder
- Sampling container set
Operation
WSI-guided field recording and QA
In-field data collection links to the WSI, context sheets, and sampling records; AI monitors compliance with the approved methodology, flags deviations, and records corrective actions.
- Sampling container set
- Archive deposition box
- Curator approvals folder
Maintenance
Archive and evidence lifecycle tracking
AI tracks archive deposition readiness, validates label accuracy, cross-references with HER schedules, and schedules post-excavation assessment and deposition steps.
- Archive deposition box
- Written scheme of investigation binder
- Archive catalog
Safety
Regulatory checks and approvals
AI maintains a log of curator interactions, ensures compliance with planning conditions, and surfaces safety-related conditions for sign-off by the Qualified Person.
- Curator approvals folder
- Plan drawing folder
- Written scheme of investigation binder
Part by part
- 1
Context sheets binder
- Watch for
- Misfiling or missing context numbers across sheets; mismatched context IDs or double entries within the context matrix
- AI action
- Cross-check numbers; trigger review if mismatch detected; auto-link related contexts in the Harris matrix
- 2
Written scheme of investigation binder
- Watch for
- Missing sections or outdated approvals; outdated sampling strategies and reference numbers
- AI action
- Flag for curator review and update log; generate delta report showing changes over iterations
- 3
Sampling container set
- Watch for
- Mislabeled or unlabeled containers; missing chain of custody notes and on-site labeling
- AI action
- Prompt sampling lead to relabel and recheck chain of evidence; attach to context and sampling sheets
- 4
Archive deposition box
- Watch for
- Incomplete archive metadata or missing labels; mismatched archive codes and accession numbers
- AI action
- Notify archive officer to correct metadata and prepare deposition plan; generate archive transfer notes to HER
- 5
Curator approvals folder
- Watch for
- Missing or unsigned approval forms; overdue reviews
- AI action
- Alert project manager for immediate sign-off action; queue for curator confirmation and tracking
- 6
Plan drawing folder
- Watch for
- Version mismatch between plan sheets; missing revision dates
- AI action
- Route to design manager for reconciliation; lock older versions and publish latest set
Worked example
Drafting the WSI for a 5.6 ha development with phases from Roman to Late Saxon
Illustrative scenario with sample data.
A planning condition requires a compliant WSI; the project team uses AI to draft the WSI structure, integrate aims and sampling, and prepare archive workflows compatible with HER approvals.
Signal in
Site brief: 5.6 ha, phases: Roman villa remains, late Roman activity; existing site records; client brief; policy constraints; expected artifacts; sampling strategy; curator criteria.
System out
WSI draft produced with sections: Aim and research questions, Methodology, Sampling strategy, Recording, Archive plan, Curator approvals; auto-generated references and cross-links to registry items; delta logs.
Human sign-off: Project manager reviews the draft, signs off the planning-adjacent sections, and forwards to the local authority planning archaeologist for comment and final consent; retains a change record for the approved version.
How to roll it out
Phase 1
Weeks 1 to 2
Baseline data ingestion, WSI skeleton generation, preliminary aims, and sampling framework; establish linking to desk-based assessment and HER.
Phase 2
Weeks 3 to 6
Refined methodology, archive workflow, and curator submission queue established; ensure cross-referencing with plan drawings and context sheets.
Phase 3
Weeks 7 to 10
Final sign-off, document harmonization, and prep for formal submission to HER and planning authority; archive pack finalized.
Where people stay in charge
- Decisions on research aims and sampling strategy remain with the project team and the Qualified Person signs off the WSI.
- All curator approvals and heritage constraints must be verified by the Local Planning Authority archaeologist before submission.
- The AI can draft but cannot modify legally binding conditions or consent terms without explicit human authorization.
Questions owners and crews ask
What should the WSI draft cover in the planning condition stage?
The WSI draft should cover aims, research questions, methodology, sampling plan, recording procedures, archive disposition, and curator approvals, with clear links to policy and regulatory requirements; it should map to the WSI hierarchy and the Harris matrix for traceability.
How does AI help with curator approvals and HER matching?
AI aligns WSI sections to HER requirements, flags missing approvals, and generates ready-to-submit metadata packets for curator review, while a qualified person reviews final sign-off and maintains an audit trail.
What data streams feed the WSI drafting AI?
Site brief, planning conditions, desk-based assessment, geophysical survey data, trench design concepts, sampling requests, existing archive references, and institutional deposition constraints.
Who signs off the AI-generated WSI and why?
The Qualified Person signs off because the WSI contains professional judgments, risk assessments, and compliance with heritage legislation, ensuring defensible planning and execution.
Sources and further reading
- CIfA: Standards and GuidanceStandards and guidance for excavation, evaluation, watching briefs, finds, and archives.
- Chartered Institute for ArchaeologistsProfessional body guidance on accreditation, Registered Organisations, and archaeologists' professional practice responsibilities.
- Archaeology Data ServiceDigital archive deposition standards, data standards, grey literature, and OASIS records explained for depositors.
- MOLA: ServicesExamples of commercial evaluation, excavation, geoarchaeology, and post-excavation service delivery practice.
- Historic EnglandPlanning advice and archaeological science guidance for local authority archaeologists and planning decisions.
- GOV.UK: National Planning Policy FrameworkPlanning policy on heritage assets, archaeological interest, and recording requirements for development.
- Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979Legal basis for scheduled monuments, scheduled monument consent, and areas of archaeological importance.
- GOV.UK: Historic EnglandHistoric England's statutory role and heritage protection publications on scheduling and designation.