For capable internal teams that want senior review of architecture, performance, security, reliability and maintainability — including code produced with AI assistance — before any of it becomes a production problem.
More and more Ignition development happens in-house. Internal teams are capable, modern tooling is good, and AI assistance has made ordinary scripting and screen work genuinely fast. That is a real shift, and it is a good one.
What it does not change is that some decisions are expensive to reverse — how the gateway is architected, how tags are structured, how data flows, what happens under load, who can reach what. An Ignition system audit gives you a senior, independent read on those decisions while they are still cheap to change.
A structured pass across the areas where Ignition systems accumulate risk quietly.
How the system is put together, how it scales, and whether the structure still matches what the system has become.
Inheritance, templates, UDTs and shared components — whether building the next screen gets easier or harder.
Correctness, scope discipline, error handling, and consistency across the codebase.
Query design, parameterization, where data lives and how it moves between systems.
What is slow now, and what will be slow at two or three times the current load.
Roles, permissions, exposure, and how the system behaves for a user who should not be able to do something.
What you would actually be able to restore, how fast, and what would be lost.
How changes reach production, what gets tested, and how a bad change gets backed out.
Whether someone new could pick this system up — including your own team eighteen months from now.
A representative sample of AI-generated or AI-assisted code, reviewed for architectural fit and consistency rather than style.
Senior engineers, working from your backups and a read-only look at the running system. Your team keeps building throughout.
This is not a report designed to frighten a budget holder. It is the review we would want on our own work: specific, evidenced, ranked by what actually matters, and clear about what is fine as it stands. Most systems we look at are doing more right than wrong, and the report says so.
Sometimes an audit finds that the underlying structure, not the code on top of it, is the real constraint — that points to an Architecture Blueprint. If the system is already in trouble and development has stalled, that is a Project Rescue. And if the finding is simply that your team needs more hands, that is engineering support.
No, and we are careful about how we write it up. The deliverable is about the system, not the people. Capable teams produce systems with risk in them — that is a property of building something large, not a verdict on anyone. The point is to find the risk while it is still cheap to fix.
Not on principle — we use it too. We sample AI-generated and AI-assisted work the same way we sample everything else and report what we actually find. In practice AI tends to produce locally-correct code that drifts from the project's own conventions, so consistency and architectural fit are where we look hardest.
No. We work from backups and a read-only look at the running gateway, so your team keeps building. We will tell you if we find something that genuinely warrants pausing, but that is rare and it is your call.
It is a fixed fee, quoted after a short fit call once we know the size and scope of the system. We will give you a real schedule on that call — timing depends on current engineering availability.
Then you get that in writing, which is worth something on its own — particularly if you are about to expand the system, hand it to a new team, or take it to another site. A clean scorecard is a legitimate outcome and we are not incentivized against it.
Twenty minutes on the phone with an engineer. Tell us what you're building and how, and we'll scope the review around it.
Talk to an engineer →