AI intelligence system

NetCause

Not alarm detection. Failure hypothesis reduction.

A correlation engine that turns an alarm storm into a short ranked list of probable root causes by reasoning over network topology and fault propagation rather than alarm counts.

Telecommunications Network Operations Topology Incident Response
Sector
Telecommunications & Network Operations
Year
2025
Duration
8 months
Team
6 people
Platforms
Web NOC console · API
Status
In production
NetCause — visual identity for the case study
11,000 to 3 Alarms to hypotheses Worked example from a core failure
Sub-minute Time to first hypothesis From storm onset
Explained Scoring basis Coverage of the observed alarm set
Live Topology model Reconciled continuously against discovery

01 — The problem

A single core failure produced eleven thousand alarms in nine minutes. The NOC's tooling ranked by severity and volume, which meant the loudest downstream symptom sat at the top and the actual cause was buried on page forty.

Engineers had learned to ignore the tool and reason from topology diagrams by hand. That works when one senior engineer is on shift and fails completely at three in the morning.

02 — What we did

We modelled the network as a dependency graph and treated an alarm storm as evidence to be explained. The question stops being which alarm matters most and becomes which single failure best accounts for everything observed.

Fault propagation rules encode how a failure at one node manifests downstream. Candidate causes are scored on how much of the observed alarm set they explain and how little they leave unexplained, which collapses eleven thousand alarms into three hypotheses.

The loudest alarm is almost never the broken thing.
Interface

What it looks like in use

Two of the screens that carry the most weight in daily use, rebuilt here from the production design system.

netcause.aurezalabs.com/incident/9042
Incident 9042 · storm11,204 ALARMS
CR-EDGE-14 · card failureEXPLAINS 94%
Fibre span 88 · degradationEXPLAINS 61%
Power feed B · brownoutEXPLAINS 22%
Unexplained alarms681
First hypothesis at 47s

Eleven thousand alarms, three hypothesesCandidates are ranked by how much of the observed alarm set each explains, and what each leaves unaccounted for.

netcause.aurezalabs.com/impact
Service impactP1
Enterprise voice · region 44,102 SUBS
Mobile backhaul · 12 sitesDEGRADED
Residential broadbandUNAFFECTED
3HYPOTHESES
47sTO FIRST

Impact in service termsEscalation is driven by the service map rather than by alarm volume, so the loudest symptom stops setting priority.

Capabilities

What the system does

Grouped by the job each set of capabilities exists to do, rather than by which team built it.

Ingestion and modelling

01 · Knowing the network

Real-time alarm ingestion

High-volume alarm streams normalised across vendors into a common event schema.

Topology modelling

A live dependency graph built from discovery, inventory and routing state rather than a static diagram.

Drift reconciliation

Continuous comparison between documented and observed topology, because the diagram is always slightly wrong.

Service mapping

Customer-facing services mapped onto infrastructure so impact is expressed in service terms.

Correlation and ranking

02 · The reasoning core

Alarm correlation

Alarms grouped into incidents by topological and temporal relationship instead of by text similarity.

Fault propagation modelling

Encoded rules for how a failure at a node manifests at its dependents, used to predict expected symptom sets.

Root-cause ranking

Hypotheses scored on explanatory coverage: how much of the observed set each accounts for, and what it leaves over.

Confidence and gaps

Unexplained alarms are surfaced explicitly rather than quietly dropped from the story.

Operations surface

03 · What the NOC sees

Automated incident summaries

A written incident narrative with affected services, probable cause and supporting alarms.

Impact assessment

Customer and service impact computed from the service map, not estimated from alarm counts.

Timeline reconstruction

The propagation sequence rendered in order so an engineer can verify the reasoning.

Post-incident export

A complete record suitable for review and regulatory reporting.

Architecture

How it is put together

Layer by layer, with the reason each one exists — because the reason is usually the interesting part.

01Alarm ingestion

Streaming pipeline handling burst loads an order of magnitude above steady state without dropping events.

  • Kafka
  • Flink
  • Vendor adapters
02Topology store

Graph database holding the live dependency model with temporal versioning so past incidents are reasoned about against the topology of the time.

  • Neo4j
  • Temporal versioning
03Propagation engine

Rule and model hybrid that predicts expected symptom sets for candidate failures and compares them against observation.

  • Rule engine
  • Bayesian scoring
04Narrative layer

Structured incident facts rendered into readable summaries with every claim linked to its supporting alarms.

  • Template + LLM
  • Fact grounding
05Console

NOC workspace with live incident view, topology overlay and timeline reconstruction.

  • React
  • Cytoscape
  • WebSocket

Technology

Streaming

  • Kafka
  • Apache Flink
  • Protobuf

Graph

  • Neo4j
  • Cypher
  • Temporal versioning

Backend

  • Python
  • FastAPI
  • PostgreSQL
  • Redis

Frontend

  • React
  • TypeScript
  • Cytoscape.js
  • WebSocket
Outcome

What changed

Measured against how the operation ran before, not against a benchmark chosen after the fact.

  • Storms became incidents. Engineers work a short hypothesis list instead of paging through alarm tables.

  • Junior engineers reason like senior ones. The topology knowledge that lived in a few heads is encoded in the model.

  • Unexplained signal is visible. The system says what it cannot account for instead of presenting a tidy incomplete story.

  • Impact is stated in service terms. Escalation decisions stopped depending on alarm volume.

How it ran

  1. Months 1-2

    Topology reconstruction

    Built the dependency graph from discovery and measured how far documentation had drifted from reality.

  2. Months 3-4

    Ingestion at burst scale

    Pipeline sized for storm conditions rather than steady state.

  3. Months 5-6

    Propagation and ranking

    Encoded propagation rules and validated hypothesis ranking against a year of resolved incidents.

  4. Months 7-8

    NOC console

    Live incident view, narrative summaries and post-incident export.

Related work

From the same practice

All fifteen projects

Manufacturing & Production Quality

LineTrace

From defect detection to defect causality.

A multimodal system that correlates line video, machine telemetry, batch records and operator actions to explain why a defect happened, not merely that it did..

2025 · 10 months
Oil & Gas · Asset Integrity

PipeIntegrity

From a single inspection to longitudinal asset integrity.

A vision system that detects and localises pipeline deterioration, then tracks each defect across inspection cycles so maintenance is prioritised by progression rather than by appearance..

2024 · 9 months
Pharmaceutical & Regulated Manufacturing

BatchResolve

From deviation to evidence, with the audit trail intact.

A deviation investigation assistant that assembles batch records, equipment telemetry, inspection imagery, SOPs and historical deviations into an evidence-linked case file a quality unit can defend to a regulator..

2025 · 11 months
Something similar?

Running into the same problem NetCause solved?

Tell us what you run. We will reply within two business days with what we would build for your situation — and, just as usefully, what we would leave out.