Predictive maintenance is now defensible at the line-item level.
Tokto attributes every prompt, completion, and model dollar to a plant, a line, a part, a process, and a function, so the CFO can defend AI spend against operations, engineering, and the board.
The board asks for AI ROI on the predictive-maintenance pilot. Operations claims a save number. The CFO has invoices, no attribution, and a CapEx decision in two weeks.
- Every prompt and model dollar attributed to a plant, a line, a part, a process, and a function.
- Smart routing to the cheapest capable model for FMEA versus root-cause versus copy. Teams report 30 to 50 percent cost reduction.
- Budgets by plant, by line, by program, with real-time alerts and auto-disable on overrun.
- Defensible AI cost reporting for the audit committee, the prime customer, and the insurer.
- Predictive-maintenance pilots run for two quarters with no attribution. The board cancels the program.
- An engineer runs a partner-grade model for routine FMEA. The plant subsidizes the difference with no visibility.
- AI spend came in 15x over forecast. The CapEx for the next plant is held back.
- The insurer asks for AI usage at renewal. The CFO produces a spreadsheet, not a record. The premium adjustment is punitive.
Tokto sits at the financial control plane of AI in the company. Every engineering co-pilot, every quality model, every supplier-shared AI call carries a plant, a line, a part, a process, and a function. The CFO knows what AI cost the lead program last quarter, what it cost on the OT side, and what it cost the supplier who passes it through at markup.
When the audit committee asks for AI ROI by plant, when the insurer asks how AI is governed at renewal, when finance has to defend predictive maintenance to operations, the answer is one report against the system of record. The CFO defends AI spend the way every other capital allocation is defended.