Back to joerudling.dev
Draft — outcome metrics still need confirming

Employer Project — Sanitized Case Study

Gressingham Foods Automation Toolkit

January 2026 – Present. Since this is employer work, specifics stay generic — no proprietary data, and no exact volumes or figures unless confirmed safe to share.

No screenshots of proprietary interfaces unless cleared. Instead: a generic architecture diagram — documents in → local LLM OCR → structured data out → compliance system.

Problem

A food production environment with legacy tooling (tkinter-based internal apps) and manual, error-prone compliance processes — including UK Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) packaging classification and shelf-life data management — running on locked-down hardware with no cloud access.

Approach

Lead with the OCR pipeline — it's the strongest technical story.

TODO: what documents the OCR pipeline processes and why OCR was needed — calibration certificates? Supplier paperwork?

TODO: how accuracy was validated / what the fallback was for low-confidence extractions

TODO: migrated legacy tkinter tooling to Flask — why? Maintainability, multi-user access, web deployment across sites?

Outcome

TODO: time saved, error reduction, or adoption — even an estimate like "cut manual document processing from X hours to Y" is far more compelling than a feature list

Deep involvement in FoodOps/QualityApp administration, including writing conditional expressions and debugging live data sources.

The constraint that makes this notable: getting an LLM pipeline running entirely offline on locked-down hardware is a genuinely uncommon skill to demonstrate.