● Business offer — Qualiopi & training providers

Qualiopi: evidence kept all year, not rebuilt the night before

A Qualiopi audit is not prepared the night before: it is held session after session, proof after proof. Your AI agent files evidence indicator by indicator against the French national quality framework, flags what is ageing before an auditor finds it, prepares the annual pedagogical and financial return, produces enrolment letters, attendance sheets, certificates and satisfaction surveys, and tracks your publicly funded training files. Hosted in France: your learners' data does not leave your premises. The quality officer signs off.

Free audit (15 min) → See the prices

Built by a training provider Hosted in France GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment The quality officer signs off

Updated on 07/09/2026

Deployed in two to four weeks

Qualiopi assistant · hosted in France

Our surveillance audit is coming up. Where do we stand?

22 indicators apply to you. 17 are covered by evidence less than twelve months old.
5 need action, and not the same action: 3 have evidence that exists but covers no session from 2026, 1 has never had written evidence, 1 rests on a document your last auditor had already flagged.
I have ranked them by effort: 3 can be settled in an hour with documents you already hold.
⛓ Sourced · 22 applicable indicators, evidence file, 186 sessions over 12 months

The one that has never had written evidence — is that serious?

No, because you already do it — you just do not write it down.
The indicator covers adjustments for learners with disabilities. I found 14 sessions out of 186 where an adjustment was genuinely made: room changed, duration extended, materials adapted. The traces exist, scattered across your e-mails and your reports.
What I have written: the procedure as you actually practise it, on one page, with the 14 cases appended to demonstrate it.
The signature stays with the quality officer: a procedure takes effect when it is approved, and that is precisely what makes it defensible at audit.
✎ Proposal · procedure drafted from 14 real cases — the quality officer signs off

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Data hosted in France

Built by a training providerA brand of LINDBERGH FORMATION, Qualiopi-certified

GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight

TurnkeyDesigned, installed and run for you

The quality officer signs offThe agent prepares, the signature stays human

✦ In brief

A Blue Lemon Agent Qualiopi agent files your evidence indicator by indicator against the French national quality framework (decree no. 2019-565 of 6 June 2019: 7 criteria, 32 indicators, of which 22 are common to all providers and 10 specific to apprentice training centres), flags evidence that is ageing, prepares the annual pedagogical and financial return, produces enrolment letters, attendance sheets, certificates and satisfaction surveys, and tracks your publicly funded training files through to service delivered. Built by a training provider: Blue Lemon Agent is a brand of LINDBERGH FORMATION, Qualiopi-certified under no. 03896 for the category "training actions". Hosted in France, through local inference or an isolated resource, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The quality officer signs off. Live in two to four weeks.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU in the target architecture

framework indicators covered, per your categories of action

evidence shown to an auditor without human sign-off

Benchmarks describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The real state of your file is measured by a review of your applicable indicators and your last twelve months of sessions.

The context

Why the Qualiopi workload is not an audit workload

The audit lasts a day; the evidence is made all year. Every session leaves documents that must be named, dated and found again two years later — and it is that daily trail, never the audit itself, that costs a training provider its time.

! The stakes

In most training organisations the quality workload rests on one person, often part-time, carrying it on top of their real job. The evidence file then lives in a shared folder and a spreadsheet, and gets rebuilt in the weeks before the audit — exactly when someone discovers that a procedure was never written down, or that valid evidence no longer covers any recent session. Meanwhile learners' personal data — identity, learning path, results, sometimes a disability-related need for adjustment — moves through consumer tools hosted outside Europe.

✓ Our answer

The agent keeps the trail as the sessions run rather than as the audit approaches. It files each document against the applicable indicator, dates it, ties it to a real session, and flags what is ageing before an auditor finds it. Where a practice exists but was never written down, it reconstructs it from the real cases and puts it forward drafted, with those cases attached. It produces session documents, launches surveys, chases non-respondents, prepares the annual return and tracks funded files through to service delivered. It runs through local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France. The quality officer signs off: it is their signature that commits the organisation in front of the auditor.

The decisive point

Learner data, sometimes sensitive: sovereignty & compliance

A training file carries an identity, a learning path, results — and sometimes a disability-related need for adjustment, which counts as sensitive data under the GDPR. Here is how our agents' architecture protects it.

Built by a training provider

Blue Lemon Agent is a brand of LINDBERGH FORMATION, Qualiopi-certified under no. 03896 for the category "training actions". The evidence grid comes from a lived audit cycle.

Local inference

The agent can run on a machine inside the organisation: no learner file leaves the network for a foreign cloud.

Hosting in France

Otherwise, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France under French law — your files: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.

Restricted access to sensitive data

Disability-related adjustment needs are handled with role-based access (RBAC), restricted and logged, kept apart from the rest of the file.

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity: our architecture depends on a subcontracting chain and remote access documented for the configuration chosen.

AI Act: governed deployment

Strictly a support agent; no evidence is presented without the quality officer's approval; traceability and human oversight 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.

A point of honesty rather than a selling point: our own certification covers training actions. The indicators specific to apprentice training centres are covered by the agent, but we have not been through them ourselves. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.

Demonstration

See the agent at work

4 real 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.

The company in this demonstration

Fictional company

Passerelle Formations — training provider for transport and logistics occupations

Sector: Continuing vocational training, category "training actions"
Headcount: 14 employees, including 6 permanent trainers and 1 part-time quality officer; 23 freelance trainers
Public served: Transport and logistics companies, publicly funded jobseekers, individuals using their training account
Activity volume: 186 sessions and 1,420 learners over the last twelve months
Tools in place: Session management software, public funding portal, e-mail, shared folder for evidence
Who decides: The quality officer approves the audit file; management signs the procedures
The improvement points: 5 of the 22 applicable indicators rest on evidence more than twelve months old, and 31% of satisfaction surveys go unanswered

Passerelle Formations is certified for training actions; its surveillance audit is set for 12 November 2026. The quality officer keeps the evidence file part-time, on top of tracking publicly funded files. Until now the file was rebuilt in the six weeks before the audit. The agent is connected to the session management software, to e-mail and to the public funding portal; it files as the sessions run, and nothing goes in front of the auditor without the quality officer's approval.

This company, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real client.

Qualiopi assistant · hosted in France

Your surveillance audit is in 85 days. Here is the state of the file, indicator by indicator.
· 22 indicators apply to you — you are not an apprentice training centre, so the 10 indicators specific to apprenticeship do not concern you. 17 are covered by evidence less than twelve months old.
· 5 need action, and not the same action: 3 have evidence that exists but covers no session from 2026; 1 has never had written evidence; 1 rests on a document your previous auditor had already flagged, and that is the one that would cost the most.
· Ranked by effort: 3 can be settled in an hour with documents you already hold — they simply need tying to a session from this year. The other 2 need a management decision, not time.
· What I suggest this week: the 3 re-attachments, which I can prepare today. The other 2, we look at together whenever you want. mock-audit_22-indicators.pdf17 covered · 5 to handle · ranked by effort
⛓ Sourced · 22 applicable indicators, evidence file, 186 sessions over 12 months, previous audit report

The one that has never had written evidence — which is it? And is it serious?

It is the welcome of learners with disabilities — and no, it is not serious, because you already do it.
What I found by looking: across your 186 sessions, 14 involved a real adjustment — a ground-floor room three times, extended assessment time for two learners, large-print materials, an interpreter arranged for a September session, two referrals to an external specialist.
Where the traces were: in your e-mails, in two meeting reports, and in the free-text notes of your session software. They all existed; none was tied to the indicator.
What I have written, and this is where I save you six weeks: the procedure as you actually practise it, on one page — who your disability officer is, at what point the question is put to the learner, which adjustments you know how to make, and who you refer to when you do not. Plus the 14 dated cases appended, which demonstrate it.
What that is worth at audit: a procedure written after the fact and without cases is a procedure the auditor questions. A procedure backed by 14 real cases across twelve months is an observed practice, and that is not the same conversation.
The signature stays with management: a procedure takes effect when it is approved, and that is precisely what makes it defensible. disability-procedure_14-cases.pdf1 page · 14 dated cases · to be signed
⛓ Sourced · 186 sessions, e-mail, meeting reports, session software notes

How do you decide a piece of evidence "no longer counts"? It is still in the file.

It is there, and that is exactly the trap: a complete file can be an expired file.
The three conditions I apply, and I tell you which one is missing: evidence must be dated, tied to a real session, and cover the audited period. One missing, and the evidence is flagged.
Your 3 flagged items:
· Learner needs assessment: your template is excellent, the last completed copy dates from March 2025. Yet you complete one for every session — they go out as e-mail attachments and never come back to the file.
· Trainer qualifications: up to date for your 6 permanent staff, but 9 of your 23 freelancers have a CV more than three years old, 4 of whom taught in 2026.
· Assessment of learning: the grids exist, none is tied to a session after December 2025.
What I did with the three: I found 41 needs assessments in your 2026 e-mails and tied them to their sessions; I prepared 9 requests for updated CVs, to be read over before sending; and I tied in 63 completed assessment grids that had stayed in the trainers' folders.
Result: the 3 indicators move from "expired evidence" to "covered", without producing anything new. What was missing was not the work, it was the attachment. expired-evidence_3-indicators.pdf41 assessments · 63 grids · 9 CVs requested
⛓ Sourced · evidence file, 2026 e-mail, trainer folders, 186 sessions

And the point the auditor already flagged last time?

That is the one to handle first, and not for the reason people assume.
The point: the auditor had noted that your gathering of stakeholder feedback covered only learners — not funders, not client companies, not trainers.
Why it is the priority: a point already flagged and not addressed does not read as an oversight. It reads as an absence of follow-up, and absence of follow-up touches a different indicator from the original one — continuous improvement. An untreated gap contaminates a second.
What I have assembled since: 3 separate questionnaires — learners, client companies, trainers — plus the funder feedback already sitting in your e-mails: 27 funder responses across 2026, never compiled.
What I measured, and the figure does not flatter me: I launched the company questionnaire in June. Response rate: 34%. My automatic reminder at seven days took it to 41% — seven points, which is little.
What it taught me, and what I do with it: it was not the reminder that was missing, it was the timing. Companies answer when the learner has just come back, not three weeks later. I moved the send to day 2 after the session ends on the last 30: 58% response. I propose to generalise it, and to keep the seven-day reminder since it costs nothing.
What management settles: the trainer questionnaire. Asking your 23 freelancers about their working conditions will produce answers you will have to act on — that is the point of the exercise, and it is also what makes the decision a real one. I put it forward; you choose the moment. stakeholders_gap-addressed.pdf3 questionnaires · 34 → 58% response
⛓ Sourced · previous audit report, 3 questionnaires, 27 funder responses, June trial on 30 sessions

Concretely, when I open a session, what do you do?

Everything that can be produced in advance, I produce in advance — and I file it on the way.
When the session opens, without asking you for anything: the named enrolment letters with venue, times, access and contact; the programme and objectives in your template; the rules of procedure; the attendance sheet per half-day, in the right format; and the needs assessment sent to the learner — the very one that was missing from the file, and which this time comes back into the session, not into a mailbox.
At the end: completion certificates, delivery certificates, and the satisfaction questionnaire at day 2.
What gets filed at the same time: every document is tied to its session and to the indicator it serves. That is the point that changes everything: the document does not have to be found again two years later, it is already in place.
The figure that matters: across the 30 sessions opened since go-live, 0 missing documents. Across the previous 156, 214 were missing — of which I recovered 89%.
The remaining 11%, and I would rather tell you: 23 paper attendance sheets never scanned, from 2025 sessions held off your premises. I cannot reconstruct them, and a reconstructed attendance sheet would be worth nothing — it is a signed document. What I propose instead: I listed the 23 sessions and the trainers concerned; 4 of them still hold the originals. For the others, a body of evidence exists — enrolment letter, completion certificate, invoice to the funder — and it is that body I am assembling. session-documents_30-sessions.pdf8 documents per session · 214 recovered over 12 months
⛓ Sourced · 186 sessions, 30 since go-live, evidence file

And our publicly funded files? That is where we lose the most time.

You lose time at three precise moments, and two of them handle themselves.
What I track on the funding portal: the enrolment, the entry into training, the documents expected, and the declaration of service delivered.
The first moment: enrolments left unanswered by the learner. Over 12 months, 84 files sat waiting more than ten days; 31 cancelled themselves. I now chase at day 3 and day 8, restating the session dates. Across the last 30: 4 waiting, 1 cancellation.
The second: the entry into training to be declared. It is declared the same day; I prepare it and you approve it with one gesture.
The third, and this is the costly one: the declaration of service delivered. Over twelve months your average delay between the end of a session and the declaration is 19 days, with two files beyond two months. That is not negligence: the declaration waits for the complete attendance sheet, which waits for the freelance trainer to send it back.
What I changed: I chase the trainer, not the learner — the trainer holds the document. Average delay across the last 30: 4 days.
What stays with you: the declaration of service delivered itself. It commits the organisation on public funding; I prepare it complete, with the attendance sheet attached, and a person approves it. That is a mandate you could give me tomorrow, capped and revocable — for now you have not given it, and I do not take it. funded-files_delays-and-reminders.pdf19 → 4 days · the trainer is chased
⛓ Sourced · funding portal, 84 files waiting over 12 months, 30 files since go-live

The annual pedagogical and financial return — can you do it?

I prepare it from your delivered sessions, and I set it against your accounts before you file it.
What I count: the sessions actually held, the learners actually present — from the attendance sheets, not from the enrolments — and the hours actually delivered. That is the first source of discrepancy: a session with 12 enrolled and 9 present is not the same line.
What I found for the past year: 3 discrepancies between my figures and your accounts. Two come from sessions invoiced in the following year; the third from a cancelled session whose enrolment had stayed open. All three are explainable, and I give you the explanation alongside the figure — a return you cannot justify line by line is a return you dread.
On the deadline, I would rather check than assume: article R6352-23 of the French labour code places the filing before 30 April each year, online. But the effective campaign date is published each year by the ministry responsible for vocational training, and it does not always coincide with the code's deadline. I look that date up at source and give it to you with its address; I do not give you a date from memory.
What is at stake behind it: the return is not an accounting formality. Without filing, the activity declaration lapses — and it has to be made again. annual-return_3-discrepancies.pdfSessions, attendees, hours · 3 discrepancies explained
⛓ Sourced · 186 sessions, attendance sheets, the year's accounts, article R6352-23 of the labour code

What will you do on your own, and what will wait for the quality officer?

Three actions without you, all reversible. Nothing shown to an auditor is among them.
What I do on my own:
· Produce and file a session's documents when it opens. A filed document can be unfiled with one click, and if the session is cancelled the whole set goes with it.
· Send the satisfaction survey at day 2 and chase at seven days. And the reverse holds: a learner who asks not to be contacted again is removed instantly, and comes back if they ask again.
· Chase the trainer holding a missing attendance sheet, at day 2 then day 6. Frequency adjustable; a reminder is a reminder, it declares nothing.
What waits for the quality officer: everything shown to the auditor, without exception; bringing a procedure into force; sending a questionnaire to your trainers; the declaration of service delivered; filing the annual return.
What I measure and what I do not: I publish every month coverage of the 22 indicators, evidence approaching twelve months, survey response rates and service-delivered lead times.
No indicator per trainer. And the mechanism is worth stating: an average satisfaction score per trainer would become a target; a trainer scored on immediate satisfaction stops assessing learning strictly, and it is the assessment of learning — itself an indicator of the framework — that would degrade to lift the other. The instrument would destroy what it measures.
The one exception is not one: who taught which session is recorded, because it is evidence of qualification required by the framework. Evidence is not a counter. who-decides-what.pdf3 automatic actions · 5 reserved decisions
✎ Framework · automatic actions and approval circuit to be settled with you

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →

Use cases

What the agent holds, from the evidence file to the annual return

Each use case matches an agent we deploy. All of them work in support: the quality officer signs off.

Included in your agent The 7 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.

From 841 € excl. VAT / month

Evidence filed by indicator

Every document attached to the indicator it serves, dated and tied to a real session.

Evidence that is ageing

Flagged before the audit: valid evidence that no longer covers any recent session no longer counts.

Session documents

Enrolment letters, programmes, attendance sheets, completion certificates and delivery certificates.

Satisfaction surveys

Learners, funders and client companies: launched, chased, analysed and put to use.

Publicly funded training files

Enrolments, entries into training, documents expected and service delivered, with deadline alerts.

Annual pedagogical and financial return

Prepared from delivered sessions, reconciled with the accounts, discrepancies flagged before filing.

Complaints & continuous improvement

Controls and safeguards These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.

Human validation, exceptions and escalation Status, safe closure and audit trail Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer

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.

Regulatory control

Beyond Qualiopi, keeping compliance current against a framework that keeps moving.

Compliance / regulatory control agent from 721 € excl. VAT / month Regulatory compliance →

HR document management

Files, trainer contracts and administrative documents, filed and findable.

HR document management agent from 710 € excl. VAT / month HR documents →

Does your need fall outside this?

In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.

Book the free audit → Build your agent

The gain

How much time does Qualiopi compliance take?

Most of the workload is traceability: naming, dating and finding again. By taking it as the sessions run, the agent removes the pre-audit reconstruction and shifts the quality officer's time towards what gets signed. The size of the gain depends on your number of sessions and your categories of action.

Building the evidence file by indicator

Today · rebuilt before the audit

Kept as sessions run

Session documents (enrolment, attendance, certificate)

Today · produced one by one

Produced at opening

Satisfaction surveys and chasing

Today · occasional

Launched and analysed

Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate how the work shifts towards approval, they represent no measurement. The quality officer approves every piece of evidence put in front of the auditor.

How it works

The stages of your AI agent project

Audit & scoping

15 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.

Pricing

A Qualiopi agent, installed and run for you

A level L2 agent: evidence file by indicator, session documents, surveys, annual return and funded-file tracking, connected to your session management tool. Connectors and maintenance included. Prices excluding VAT — annual subscription, so the gains have time to settle.

Agility

Setup + controlled subscription

9,955 € ^{excl. VAT} setup

then 841 € ^{excl. VAT}/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.

Installation, configuration and training for your teams
Operation, human oversight, updates and support
Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource

Order →

The simplest Serenity

All inclusive, no setup fee

1,396 € ^{excl. VAT} /month

all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.

Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
Operation, human oversight, updates and support
Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end

Order →

100% Sovereign

On site, you own it

14,150 € ^{excl. VAT} setup

then 1,062 € ^{excl. VAT}/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.

Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
French / European AI models run locally
Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)

Order →

Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.

AI model: none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.

Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.

What to expect

Go-live 2 to 3 weeks

Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.

Steady state 4 to 7 weeks

After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect. Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.

See the full price list →

Estimate my gains in 1 minute →

Our commitment

Four guarantees that matter to a training provider

Written by people who sit the auditBlue Lemon Agent is a brand of LINDBERGH FORMATION, Qualiopi-certified under no. 03896 for training actions.

Your learners' files stay with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no file entrusted to a foreign third party, no content used to train a model.

The quality officer keeps the signatureThe agent gathers, files, dates and proposes; what goes in front of the auditor is approved by a person.

Human oversight & traceabilityEvery piece of evidence carries its date, its originating session and its author, in line with the AI Act.

Going further

Related resources

AI agents for business →Our full offer AI for education and training →The whole sector Sovereign AI hosted in France →Our confidentiality commitment

Frequently asked questions

Your questions, our answers

Does the agent guarantee certification?

No, and nobody can: certification is awarded by an accredited certification body on the strength of an audit. What the agent guarantees is a complete file, filed by indicator, dated and tied to real sessions — and no missing evidence discovered on audit day. The quality officer approves what is presented.

Which framework does the agent work against?

The French national quality framework, set by decree no. 2019-565 of 6 June 2019: 7 criteria broken down into 32 indicators, of which 22 are common to all providers and 10 specific to apprentice training centres. Which indicators apply to you depends on your categories of action, and the agent works only on those.

What difference does "built by a training provider" make?

Blue Lemon Agent is a brand of LINDBERGH FORMATION, a training provider registered with the Île-de-France prefecture under activity declaration number 119 108 635 91 — that registration is not a state accreditation — and Qualiopi-certified under certificate no. 03896 for the category "training actions". The evidence filing grid and the agent's vocabulary come from a lived audit cycle, not from a reading of the framework. Our certification covers training actions: the indicators specific to apprentice training centres are covered by the agent, but we have not been through them ourselves.

Does it prepare the annual pedagogical and financial return?

Yes, from your delivered sessions, learners and hours. It reconciles the result with your accounts and flags discrepancies before filing. Article R6352-23 of the French labour code sets the deadline before 30 April each year, and the annual campaign date is published by the ministry responsible for vocational training — the agent looks that date up at source rather than assuming it.

Does it handle publicly funded training files?

It tracks them end to end: enrolments, entries into training, documents expected and the declaration of service delivered, with an alert on files approaching a deadline. Declarations that commit the organisation are submitted for approval: they do not go out until a person has seen them.

How long does deployment take?

Two to four weeks depending on the integrations (session management tool, public funding portal, e-mail), after a free audit measuring the state of your evidence file, then migration of what exists, a testing phase and a review by your quality officer before go-live.

Related use cases

Other agents for a training provider

Quality tracking & non-conformities →Complaints, actions, effectiveness checks Internal training & tutoring →Paths and quizzes for your teams HR document management →Files and administrative documents

Let's talk

Let us measure the state of your evidence file

15 minutes to review your applicable indicators and see what would be missing on audit day — hosted in France, supervised, no commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → Write to us