We build Agents. You build the Future.
● B2B offer — Documents & readingSummary agent: the essentials, with the reference to the text
A two-hundred-page report rarely arrives at a good moment. Reading it in full is impossible, skimming it is risky. Your agent draws out the key points while referring each one back to its source page, so you can check before acting. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With the 100% Sovereign package, the document does not leave your organisation. The summary guides the reading; it does not replace it on the passages that commit you.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The report's conclusions are reported as they are worded, with no rewording that would shift the meaning.
Two passages are qualified in the text: I flag them as such rather than settling them.
🔗 Sourced · every point refers back to its page
On a document that bears on a decision, reading the passages concerned remains necessary.
✎ Support · no manufactured conclusion
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
A Blue Lemon Agent summary agent handles your long documents — reports, studies, minutes — and draws out the key points while referring each one back to its source page. It reports the conclusions as they are worded and flags qualified passages instead of settling them. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, your documents are never uploaded to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Live within a few weeks,.
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client: how large the gain is on the volume and length of your documents is confirmed by a pilot.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
One package, one agent
A summary agent (sourced summaries, targeted searching), installed and operated for you.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several kinds of document to get through. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you. On passages that commit you, the summary does not replace reading.
Sourced key points
Draws out the main elements while referring each one back to its source page.
Flagging nuances and contradictions
Highlights nuances and contradictions in the source passages instead of smoothing them over.
Targeted searching
Finds in a long document the passages dealing with a particular subject.
Multilingual translation
Handling a document in a foreign language is not included here: translation is the service of a dedicated agent, which sets out the languages, the formats and the human validation.
Available View the agent page →Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Document base
To question a whole body of documents, a dedicated agent answers in plain language.
Document agent (FAQ, knowledge base) from 353 € excl. VAT / month Knowledge base →Legal documentation
For searching contracts and case law, a dedicated legal agent exists.
Legal agent (contract / case law search) from 485 € excl. VAT / month Legal →In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
See the agent at work
4 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· Of 312 summarised documents, 41 were never opened in full. The summary stood in for the reading there, and I will tell you on which ones that raises a question.
· Seven contract summaries were produced before signature. Each carries its caveat at the head and the full contract attached — and I am proposing better than a banner.
· An eleven-word exception — an "unless" — survives no compression: I now copy it word for word.
· The return-to-source rate is 12%. It is on eleven binding documents that it needs to rise, and the setting that gets it there is ready. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41 documents never opened
⛓ Source · 312 summarised documents, source opening log, lengths requested
What I measure: how often somebody opens the full document after reading my summary. Across 312 summaries: 38 returns.
What that means: in 88% of cases, the page and a half of the summary was enough for the reader. For an information note, that is the point. For a contract, a study or an expert report, it is a problem — and the same figure counts them all.
How I read that figure, and it goes against the grain: a low return rate is not a success. Any efficiency indicator would take it for one — the less people return to the source, the better the summary "works" — which is exactly why I publish it with the document type alongside.
What I do: I separate documents by what they bind. Of the 41 never opened, seven are contracts and four are expert reports. Those eleven are what I report, not the 41.
What I propose: that certain document types not be summarisable without the source opening alongside. A setting, not a prohibition. 312-summaries_38-returns.pdf11 documents of 41 are a problem
⛓ Source · 312 summaries, 38 returns to source, document types
Routing follows what binds: a contract summary produced before signature goes to whoever will sign, with the full document attached; a binding document never opened to its recipient, once — I do not chase, that would be badgering them; an exception or condition I could not fit flagged in the summary itself, never elsewhere; a falling return rate to whoever steers, monthly.
With a chase: none on a binding document — one alert, then silence. Then a monthly summary: by document type, never by reader.
Three guarantees, and the first is the most uncomfortable for me. Every summary states in plain words what it left out — that is the only way to know when to go to the text. A figure and an exception are carried over as they stand, with their page: those are exactly the two things a summary damages by condensing them. And every point carries its reference back to the text: the summary directs the reading, and on what binds you, the source opens alongside.
✎ Framework · what is omitted is always stated, no figure or exception summarised
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I record: in a one-page summary of a 40-page document, a condition introduced by "unless" does not survive compression. The summary said what the rule provides; the document said when it does not apply.
Why it happens: an exception is short, subordinate, and syntactically secondary. Everything that compresses a text treats it as secondary — it is mechanical, and it is this trade's central defect.
What I do since: I never compress an exception, a condition, a reservation or a duration. They are carried over as they stand, in quotation marks, even if they take up a third of the summary.
What that changes when reading: my summaries are less fluent. A page holding three literal quotations reads worse than one written in a single flow. That is accepted: fluency is exactly what made the eleven words disappear.
What I also supply, always: the list of what I did not carry over, one line per item, at the end of the summary. A summary that does not say what it omits lets people believe nothing was omitted. 11-words_1-clause-reversed.pdfThe exception copied word for word, never compressed
⛓ Source · 40-page document, one-page summary, clause not carried over
What I do before writing: I state what the requested length forces me to leave out. "In one page I can give the subject, the conclusions and the five quantified points. The methodological reservations and the sixteen recommendations will not fit."
Why before rather than after: because at that moment you can still ask for three pages. Afterwards the summary exists and it carries authority.
What that produced, measured: of 312 requests, 74 were revised upwards after that statement — the requester wanted one page and took three once they knew what the page cost.
What I refuse: a length that makes the document false. On a 200-page expert report, one page cannot hold the reservations, and an expert report without its reservations says the opposite of what it says. I then propose the minimum length, and leave the choice.
What I have never done: hold the requested length by cutting into the reservations without saying so. 312-requests_74-revised.pdfWhat the page costs, said beforehand
⛓ Source · 312 requests, 74 revised upwards
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I do: every summary of a binding document carries, at its head, "this summary does not replace the document; read it before signing", and the full document is attached.
What I record despite that: of the seven, three were not opened in full before signature. The line was there, in bold, on the first line.
What it teaches me: a warning read a hundred times stops being read. That is true of every banner, and I have no reason to be the exception.
What I propose, and it is not one more warning: that for binding documents the summary open alongside the document, never alone. Not a block, not a tick-box: both on screen.
What I keep doing, and that is where the service lies: summarise contracts, all of them, these included. A 60-page contract left unsummarised is not read more — it is skimmed, which is worse, because nobody knows what was skipped. 7-contracts_3-not-opened.pdfA warning read a hundred times stops being read
⛓ Source · 7 contract summaries, opening log, 3 signatures without reading
What I summarise without reservation: reports, studies, notes, minutes, documentation, tenders — everything addressed to a professional who will then decide.
What I refuse: summarising to a person a document that concerns them personally and that they are entitled to read in full — a decision that applies to them, a medical record about them, a document from their own file.
Why: for those documents, completeness is part of the right to see them. A summary, however good, decides on their behalf what matters in a text aimed at them.
What I do in that case: I offer something other than a summary — a clickable contents list, the list of passages naming them, a glossary of technical terms. Those are reading aids, not substitutes.
What that gives: of 312 requests, 9 fell into this case. All nine received a contents list and a glossary, and eight opened the whole document. 9-requests_8-documents-opened.pdfA reading aid, not a substitute
✎ Framework · no summary of a document aimed personally at its reader
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I copy literally: figures with their unit, dates, conditions and exceptions, and definitions. Those four categories do not survive rephrasing: rephrasing a figure changes it, rephrasing an exception weakens it.
The case that set the rule: in a one-page summary of a 40-page document, a condition introduced by "unless" — eleven words — had disappeared. It reversed the clause it followed. The summary was faithful to 39 pages out of 40, and wrong on the one that mattered.
What I do before writing: I state what the requested length forces me to leave out. "In one page I keep the decisions and the amounts; the justifications and the edge cases do not fit." You know what you will not be reading before you choose not to read it.
What I summarise without reservation: reports, studies, notes, minutes, documentation. The one case where I put a caveat at the top is a document that binds — and there the caveat simply says: this does not replace reading before signing. four-categories-copied.pdfWhat does not survive rephrasing · the statement before writing
⛓ Source · 4 categories copied, an eleven-word "unless" recovered
What is kept: the summary and the document it comes from, with the page of every claim, what was declared left out, the summaries of binding documents and their caveat, and the return-to-source rate.
The indicator I publish, and that no summarising tool publishes: the return rate is 12 %. Of 312 documents summarised, 41 were never opened in full. It says whether the summary serves as an aid or a substitute — and it is on the eleven binding documents in that set that it needs to rise, not on the 41.
What the banner achieves, measured: 7 contract summaries all carried their caveat at the top, and three contracts were signed without the full version being opened. A warning read a hundred times stops being read — hence the setting I propose: on a binding document, the summary opens alongside the document, never alone.
What I do not keep: nothing about who reads what. The return rate is measured overall, never per person — a reader who knows their return rate is counted opens the long document without reading it. what-you-keep_summaries.pdf5 items kept · the return rate, published with the document type
⛓ Source · 12 % return rate, 41 documents never opened in full
You name the subject, I return the passages that deal with it, and nothing else: the passage copied as it stands, its page, and the sentence before it where that changes the meaning.
On the 214-page audit report, "late payment penalties": 9 passages across 6 pages — pages 41, 42, 88, 137, 188 and 202. The last three are the only ones nobody would have found: they do not use the word "penalty" but "fixed indemnity due beyond the contractual period". Retrieval looks for the subject, not the word — and it always tells you how it reached a passage that does not contain your term.
What targeted retrieval returns besides the passages: the places where the subject is expected and absent. In this report, appendix 4 lists the financial clauses and mentions no penalty — an absence in that particular place is information, and a summary would never have given it.
The rule of retrieval is the rule of summarising: figures, dates, conditions and durations are copied literally, never reworded. Of these 9 passages, 4 carry a deadline and 2 a percentage: all six are in the source text, word for word.
The figure I publish about myself: across 96 retrievals this quarter, 11 missed a passage the reader then found — 11.4%. Nine were in tables, whose cells come away from their headers once lifted out of the document. Tables are now read with their column and row headers: 1 missed passage across the following 64 retrievals. The rate is published, like the rate of return to the source document — it is the only way to measure what retrieval gains you.
⛓ Sourced · targeted retrieval — every passage returned with its page
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
What does an AI agent bring to reading your documents?
An unread report is a useless report. But a summary that distorts a conclusion is worse than no summary, especially if a decision rests on it.
! The issue
Reports, studies and minutes pile up faster than they can be read: you end up deciding on the basis of a skim. Yet a general-purpose automatic summary smooths over the qualifications and manufactures conclusions the text does not contain — and means uploading often confidential documents to a service subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
An automated summary is only of interest if it is sovereign and can be checked. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, a systematic reference back to the source page, qualified passages flagged: the summary guides the reading instead of standing in for it. On anything that bears on a decision, you will read the passage — but you know which one.
The documents you have summarised: sovereignty & compliance
The documents you have summarised are often the ones you have not yet circulated. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to your organisation: no document leaves the network, no report is uploaded to a third-party service.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For the documents you have summarised, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling whatsoever: an environment strictly dedicated to your organisation and its documents.
A systematic reference back to the source
Every point in the summary refers back to its source page, which makes the summary checkable; encryption, role-based access and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no conclusion is produced that the document does not state; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
How much reading can a team target?
By drawing out the key points and where they sit, reading in full gives way to targeted reading of the passages that count. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Four guarantees that matter to your documents
Related resources
Your questions, our answers
Can I rely on the summary without reading the document?
Can the agent distort a conclusion?
Which document formats are supported?
Are our documents protected?
What does the agent do with a contradictory document?
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
Other agents for documentation
Let us estimate the potential across your documents
30 minutes to frame your heaviest documents — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.