The AI report writer for Australian pest control
Hunter's Report Writer is the reason nobody sits down at nine at night. The technician talks and photographs; Hunter writes it up, refuses the check-out that is missing a required field or photo, checks the report for what it is expected to carry, and produces the audit pack when somebody asks. What it will not do is tell you a treatment complied with something — it holds no regulator's data and says so.
Last reviewed
Replaces the nine-o'clock data entry and the compliance consultant. Employing somebody to do this work in Australia costs about $65,000* a year — which is what the figure is, not what we charge.
What the Report Writer does
The technician talks; Hunter writes it up
Audio and video recorded on a job are transcribed at ingest and the text lands on the attachment, so the agent, a routine and every report reader see plain text. Where a business has no voice configured there is no transcription — Hunter records that the recording could not be read rather than guessing at it, because a plausible invented sentence inside a compliance record is the worst possible outcome.
A plain-English summary with the photos, on completion
The customer gets a private link. The page carries the work done, the treatments, the findings, the recommendations, the photos and any warranty. The photos are on the page rather than in the email, because Hunter's outbound email deliberately does not carry images. The message stays transactional and nothing — not a template, not a routine, not the agent — may append an offer or a review request to it.
What we do not claim
The offer originally promised: A service summary with the photos, emailed on completion. Hunter's outbound email does not carry images, deliberately — an allowlist that admits image tags is an allowlist that admits tracking pixels.
The report that would have gone out incomplete
Missing sections, empty required fields, placeholder text, internal inconsistencies, thin photo coverage, inaccessible areas claimed with no evidence, dates out of sequence, unresolved references. The catch that sells it: a limitations field containing a single full stop finalises perfectly cleanly in most systems today. Hunter checks the contents a timber pest report is expected to carry. It does not check the report against the text of the Standard, and no check in it is named after one.
What we do not claim
The offer originally promised: A report review agent that checks every report against the standard. Standards Australia licenses that text. Holding it is a reproduction problem and applying it is a competence claim.
Photo documentation enforced in the workflow
Required photo contexts are declared per service type, and check-out refuses until they exist. Coverage is reportable across the whole business, so 'we always take photos' becomes a number you can look at instead of a belief.
Applications checked against the label data you entered
Enter your own label data — the source, who verified it, when, a photo of the label, an expiry — and Hunter checks every application against it, recording the result permanently. Every verdict names whose data it used and when it was last verified, and ends by telling you to check the label in your hand. Where you have entered nothing, the verdict is that there was nothing to check against. It is never a green tick. Hunter does not hold label rates and cannot become the source of one without a schema change and three failing tests.
What we do not claim
The offer originally promised: An APVMA label compliance checker — is this product approved for this pest, at this site, at this rate. That asserts authority over a regulated direction. There is no public APVMA data feed, and a checker that answered from nothing would be worse than no checker at all.
An approved product list per job type
Say which products may be used on which kind of work, and the list travels into the workflow rather than living on a laminated sheet in the shed. A new technician gets the business's own answer rather than the one they used at the last place.
A compliant pesticide application record, with fields that cannot be skipped
The record's required fields come from the state the site is in, which is what makes this different from a generic notes box. An application cannot be finalised while a field its state profile requires is empty, and amendments are recorded rather than overwritten.
Record completeness, checked daily rather than at audit
A daily sweep over what should have been written up and was not — the visit with no application record, the report with an empty required field, the job with no photos. It arrives as an exception list while the technician can still remember the job, which is the only time the gap is cheap to fix.
An audit-ready export, in one click
Pick a date range and a scope and Hunter assembles the applications, the reports, the licences, the chemical register and the signatures into one pack, filed with the date it was produced. The moment this matters, nobody has time to build it by hand.
Every area photographed — including the ones you could not get into
Inaccessible areas are the ones that end up in a dispute, and they are the ones nobody photographs. Hunter treats an inaccessible area claimed with no evidence as a finding on the report, and the coverage report counts the areas that were documented rather than the files that were uploaded.
Limitations and scope, in plain English, signed
The limitations and scope sections are required content rather than optional prose, the review flags placeholder text where somebody typed a full stop to get past the form, and the customer's signature is captured against the document itself.
Risk flagged on the property, not just in the report
A site with high-risk characteristics carries that flag on its record, so the next technician sees it before they arrive rather than reading last year's report on the driveway.
A SWMS draft from the job and the site
Hunter drafts it. The SWMS is yours. Every draft is watermarked, prefills only from the job and site records with each line attributed to the record it came from, and arrives with the hazard, control, protective equipment and emergency fields empty. It refuses to finalise without a named reviewer and a signature, because a safety instrument auto-issued unreviewed moves the operator's duty onto their software.
What we do not claim
The offer originally promised: Site-specific SWMS generation from job details. A SWMS is a work health and safety instrument. Auto-issuing one unreviewed moves the operator's duty onto their software, which helps nobody at an incident.
A warranty register that knows what is ending
What cover you have sold, when it ends, and which conditional inspections have lapsed — with a watch that tells you before the customer finds out. Hunter reports the lapse and what your own terms say. Whether cover is void is a reading of a contract Hunter is not party to, and it never tells a customer they have none.
It cannot be submitted without the photos and the fields
This is the whole difference between a compliance feature and a compliance habit. Check-out refuses while a required photo context is empty, while a required application field is blank, or while a termite assessment the service type demands has not been done.
Why this role exists at nine o'clock at night
The compliance work in a pest business is not hard. It is just always done last, by a tired person, from memory, hours after the property was in front of them. That is where records go missing, where a limitations paragraph becomes a full stop, and where the photo of the sub-floor that was never taken becomes an argument two years later.
Hunter moves the writing to the moment. The technician talks and photographs on site; the required fields come from the state the property is in; check-out refuses while something required is missing. The report is assembled from records that already exist rather than typed again at a kitchen table.
- Voice and photos captured on site, transcribed and attached at ingest
- Required fields driven by the state the property is in, not a generic form
- Check-out refused while a required photo or field is missing
- A daily exception list while the technician can still remember the job
- One audit pack, produced and dated, when somebody asks
The line Hunter will not cross
Three of the offer's promises for this role would have made Hunter the asserted authority on a regulated fact, and all three ship deliberately narrower.
Hunter does not tell you whether a product is approved for a pest, a site and a rate. It checks your application against label data your business entered, names whose data it used and when somebody last verified it, and ends every verdict by telling you to check the label in your hand. Where you have entered nothing, it says it has nothing to check against — and it is built so that answer can never render as a pass.
Hunter does not check a report against an Australian Standard. It checks the contents a timber pest report is expected to carry, and no check in it is named after a Standard. Holding that text would be a reproduction problem and applying it would be a competence claim we are not in a position to make.
Hunter does not generate a safety instrument. It drafts a SWMS from the job and site records, watermarks it, leaves the hazard and control fields empty, and refuses to finalise one without a named reviewer and a signature.
Each of those is a smaller promise than the offer's original sentence, and each of them is one an operator can rely on. An operator who believes their software is watching their label rates, and therefore stops watching them, is worse off than before they bought it.
What comes out at the other end
The paperwork the business needs is not one document; it is five different things different people ask for, usually in a hurry.
| Who asks | What they want | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| The customer, after the visit | What was done, what was found, and the photos | A private summary link, sent on completion |
| The purchaser's solicitor | The timber pest report, with limitations and a signature | The report, reviewed for completeness and signed |
| A regulator or an auditor | Applications, licences, the chemical register, signatures | One dated audit pack over the range they asked for |
| The operator, on a Monday | What did not get written up last week | The daily record-completeness exceptions |
| The next technician on that site | The risk flags and the history | The site record, before they arrive |
Common questions
- Does Hunter check my chemical applications against the APVMA?
- No, and it says so. There is no public interface to that register, so Hunter gives you a deep link, you paste back what you found, and it stores that with the source address, the date and who pasted it. Application checks run against label data your own business entered and every verdict names its source.
- Does it check my reports against AS 4349.3?
- No. It checks the contents a timber pest report is expected to carry — missing sections, empty required fields, placeholder text, photo coverage, unevidenced inaccessible areas, dates out of sequence. Checking a report against the text of a Standard would mean holding that text, which we do not and will not.
- Can a technician finish a job without doing the paperwork?
- Not where you have said the paperwork is required. Check-out is refused while a required photo context is empty, a required application field is blank, or a termite assessment the service type demands has not been done — and the refusal lives in the service layer, so the phone, the office screen and the agent all hit the same wall.
- What happens to a warranty when the annual inspection is missed?
- Hunter reports the lapse, tells you which cover it affects and what your own terms say about it. It does not decide that the cover is void — that is a reading of a contract between you and your customer, and software telling a homeowner they have no cover would be both wrong and expensive.
Want to see this one on your own book?
We take one pest control business per postcode, so the demo starts with whether yours is open.
Book a walkthroughWho it hands work to
Apply
Run your whole business from one place
Book a walkthrough and we'll show you Hunter on your own kind of work. If it fits, we set it up with you. Your data comes across, and it stays yours.
Implementation included · No lock-in contracts · Built for NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT & NT