Modern voice transcription handles common construction terms reliably: formwork, RFI, SWMS, EOT, practical completion, latent conditions, hold point. Accuracy decreases on specific product codes, uncommon abbreviations, and project-specific nicknames. For standard daily diary entries, which are factual narrative rather than technical specification, it's more than sufficient.
Does it know construction terms out of the box?
Core construction vocabulary comes through well. Trades, contract terms, common acronyms, standard processes: all handle reliably when spoken at a normal pace. Formwork, falsework, substructure, services rough-in, defects liability, extension of time: these aren't unusual to a modern transcription engine.
Highly specific terminology will need a correction. Product brand names, subcontractor names, site-specific nicknames. These the engine hasn't seen before. That's a few seconds at review time, not a workflow problem.
What about abbreviations and acronyms?
Common industry acronyms transcribe well when spoken as letters: RFI, EOT, PC, SWMS, WHS, EWP, HIAB. The engine recognises these in a construction context.
Less common abbreviations or project-specific shorthand are less reliable. The practical workaround is speaking the full term rather than the abbreviation when logging non-standard shorthand. "Extension of time" rather than "EOT" when you're not confident the acronym will land correctly.
How do I handle errors in the transcript?
LARD shows you each entry for review before the daily report is generated. Correct any transcription errors at that point. The final PDF reflects the corrected text. End-of-day review takes under a minute when you've been logging throughout the day.
Most people report that error rates drop significantly after the first week. Technique improves, and the transcription engine learns your patterns. The volume of corrections needed at the end of day one is higher than day ten.
Is voice accuracy good enough for a legal record?
Yes, with review. The legal weight of a site diary entry comes from being made at the time and from what it says, not from how it was recorded. A voice-logged entry corrected at review time is as valid as a typed entry. What matters is that the record was made at the time, is accurate, and hasn't been changed since.
For more on this, see Can a voice-recorded report be used as legal evidence?
What's the practical accuracy floor for site diary use?
For standard daily diary content, attendance, work progress, weather, delays, subcontractor performance, incidents, the transcription accuracy is high enough that the review step is fast. Most entries need no correction. A small number need a word or two changed. The workflow holds up at production pace on a busy site.
Where accuracy degrades, product codes, unusual abbreviations, heavy accent variation, the fix is the same: say the full term, review before generating. The ceiling for useful voice diary logging is much higher than most site supervisors expect before they try it.