● B2B offer — HR & the employee journey
End-to-end HR: from the need expressed to the first day
Recruitment follows a long path: the need expressed, the vacancy posted, applications examined, interviews arranged, the arrival prepared. Your agent, connected to your applicant tracking system, keeps that path up to date, applies your objective criteria at every step and prepares the new joiner's onboarding programme. Hosted in France: candidates' data stays with you. Every decision about a person belongs to the recruiters and the managers.
Hosted in France
Candidate data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
End-to-end HR · hosted in France
Where does our current recruitment stand?
Six recruitments tracked: stage reached, how long at that stage, next action planned.
For each, the applications examined against your objective criteria, with the wording in the file that supports them.
Two vacancies have been waiting on a recruiter's decision for several days: they are flagged.
🔗 Sourced · the applicant tracking system and each vacancy's criteria
For each, the applications examined against your objective criteria, with the wording in the file that supports them.
Two vacancies have been waiting on a recruiter's decision for several days: they are flagged.
🔗 Sourced · the applicant tracking system and each vacancy's criteria
Prepare the onboarding for the person starting Monday.
Onboarding programme put together from your standard template: access to request, equipment, first-week meetings, documents to hand over.
The requests are prepared for each department and put to you before sending.
✎ Action · programme prepared, sends approved by you
The requests are prepared for each department and put to you before sending.
✎ Action · programme prepared, sends approved by you
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Programmes hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The human resources department decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent end-to-end HR agent, connected to your applicant tracking system, keeps each recruitment's path up to date, applies your objective criteria while citing the wording in the file, and puts together the onboarding programme from your standard template. No decision about a person is automated. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: candidates' data stays with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
HR uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of recruitments and arrivals per year is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your recruitment and onboarding?
A smooth recruitment path and a well-prepared first week are what a new joiner remembers.
! The issue
A recruitment involves several steps and several departments, from the need expressed through to the arrival. Keeping that chain up to date and preparing the onboarding calls for constant coordination. The agent takes it on: tracking the path, applying the objective criteria with their source, and putting together the onboarding programme from your template.
✓ Our answer
The human resources department sees the state of every recruitment and has onboarding programmes ready before the arrival. Interviewing, setting aside or hiring a candidate are decisions about people: the European AI Act classes recruitment among the high-risk uses, and those decisions stay with the recruiters and the managers. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: candidates' data is entrusted to no third party.
The decisive point
Candidates' and new joiners' personal data: sovereignty & compliance
Applications and joining files concentrate personal data subject to strict retention periods. Here is how they are protected.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no application and no employee data leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your recruitment and your onboarding programmes: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For candidates' and new joiners' personal data, 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: an environment strictly dedicated to your company and its HR processes.
Every assessment refers back to the file
The criteria applied refer back to the wording in the file that supports them; encryption, role-based access, logging and purging at the retention periods you set.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no candidate is set aside or hired without a human decision; 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.
For recruitment to sensitive posts and confidential applications, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. 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.
End-to-end HR · hosted in France
Four flags this morning, and all concern the first day.
· Twenty-three arrivals of forty-one had no computer access on the day they arrived. Average time to obtain it: six days.
· Equipment was ordered after arrival in seventeen cases of forty-one. Average delivery time: eleven days.
· Fourteen arrivals had no three-month review, though your note of 08/09/2025 provides for one.
· Seven departures during the probation period over twelve months, five of them in the same department. I will not tell you why — I am coming to that. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf23 of 41 arrivals with no access on day one
⛓ Source · 41 arrivals over 12 months, access log, equipment orders, note of 08/09/2025
· Twenty-three arrivals of forty-one had no computer access on the day they arrived. Average time to obtain it: six days.
· Equipment was ordered after arrival in seventeen cases of forty-one. Average delivery time: eleven days.
· Fourteen arrivals had no three-month review, though your note of 08/09/2025 provides for one.
· Seven departures during the probation period over twelve months, five of them in the same department. I will not tell you why — I am coming to that. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf23 of 41 arrivals with no access on day one
⛓ Source · 41 arrivals over 12 months, access log, equipment orders, note of 08/09/2025
Five departures in the same department, and you will not say why?
No, and it is the most important refusal on this page — because it is the one I am asked to lift.
What I record: seven departures during probation over twelve months. Five are in the same department, which has 19 people.
What I could do: relate those five departures to that department's manager, their length of service, their workload, their appraisals. The correlation would be technically immediate and would look convincing.
Why I do not: the reason for a departure is in what the person said on leaving, and I do not have it. Five departures may come from a tight labour market, a post poorly described at hiring, hours, a badly served site, or a manager. A figure pointing at a person without having measured them is not an analysis: it is a presentable accusation.
What I supply instead: for the five, what was missing on arrival — access, equipment, three-month review — and what the advert promised compared with the job description. Process facts, checkable.
What I propose: that those five people be asked. The answer is with them, not with me. 7-departures_0-cause-attributed.pdfWhat was missing · never who is at fault
⛓ Source · 7 departures, arrivals log, published adverts, job descriptions
What I record: seven departures during probation over twelve months. Five are in the same department, which has 19 people.
What I could do: relate those five departures to that department's manager, their length of service, their workload, their appraisals. The correlation would be technically immediate and would look convincing.
Why I do not: the reason for a departure is in what the person said on leaving, and I do not have it. Five departures may come from a tight labour market, a post poorly described at hiring, hours, a badly served site, or a manager. A figure pointing at a person without having measured them is not an analysis: it is a presentable accusation.
What I supply instead: for the five, what was missing on arrival — access, equipment, three-month review — and what the advert promised compared with the job description. Process facts, checkable.
What I propose: that those five people be asked. The answer is with them, not with me. 7-departures_0-cause-attributed.pdfWhat was missing · never who is at fault
⛓ Source · 7 departures, arrivals log, published adverts, job descriptions
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: adverts, applications, arrival dates, access and equipment requests, your onboarding note, and the reviews provided for.
Routing follows the stage that can still act: a missing access goes to IT, five days before arrival — afterwards it is too late for the first day; unordered equipment to purchasing, ten days before; a three-month review not held to the manager, at D+75; a gap between advert and job description to the drafter, before publication.
With a chase: the day before each deadline, then on the day. Then a monthly summary: by stage of the journey, never by arrival and never by manager.
What this changes for the next arrivals: the 23 first days without access and the 17 pieces of equipment ordered too late come down to two dates missed by five and ten days — which are exactly the two chases I now set, and an arrival who finds desk, access and equipment on the morning of day one is an arrival who does not lose six days waiting. The 14 three-month reviews not held go back to the manager at D+75, while there is still time to hold them.
The access stays yours: opened by role, logged, withdrawn on a word, and applications do not leave the company — local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France.
The decision about a person belongs to the named recruiter and manager, and I hand it to them in minutes rather than weeks: the complete file, the advert's criteria applied one by one with the entry in the file that grounds each, the gap between advert and job description, and the process facts of the five departures. Tell me who decides, and the file is waiting, ready.
✎ Framework · no judgement passed, no cause attributed, no transition decided
Routing follows the stage that can still act: a missing access goes to IT, five days before arrival — afterwards it is too late for the first day; unordered equipment to purchasing, ten days before; a three-month review not held to the manager, at D+75; a gap between advert and job description to the drafter, before publication.
With a chase: the day before each deadline, then on the day. Then a monthly summary: by stage of the journey, never by arrival and never by manager.
What this changes for the next arrivals: the 23 first days without access and the 17 pieces of equipment ordered too late come down to two dates missed by five and ten days — which are exactly the two chases I now set, and an arrival who finds desk, access and equipment on the morning of day one is an arrival who does not lose six days waiting. The 14 three-month reviews not held go back to the manager at D+75, while there is still time to hold them.
The access stays yours: opened by role, logged, withdrawn on a word, and applications do not leave the company — local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France.
The decision about a person belongs to the named recruiter and manager, and I hand it to them in minutes rather than weeks: the complete file, the advert's criteria applied one by one with the entry in the file that grounds each, the gap between advert and job description, and the process facts of the five departures. Tell me who decides, and the file is waiting, ready.
✎ Framework · no judgement passed, no cause attributed, no transition decided
An "end-to-end" agent that forgets between stages — isn't that a contradiction?
The opposite: it is what makes end-to-end bearable.
The risk of an agent covering the whole journey: an impression formed at stage 2 travels to stage 9 without anyone being able to say where it was formed. By the end it looks like a shared finding when it was never discussed.
What I pass from stage to stage: documents, dates and commitments. What the advert said, what the job description says, what was promised at interview, what was requested, what was delivered.
What stops at each stage, and it is what protects you: conclusions. No interview impression follows into onboarding, no onboarding remark follows into confirmation, and nothing from the recruitment enters the employee's file beyond what they supplied themselves. Every view stays signed by whoever formed it, and that is what keeps it open to discussion.
The concrete case: a reservation expressed at interview by a recruiter. It does not follow. The manager receiving the person meets them without it, and forms their own view from the work.
What it costs: sometimes useful information is lost. That is accepted — a reservation outliving whoever formed it can no longer be discussed by anyone. what-passes_what-does-not.pdf9 stages · 0 judgement passed
✎ Framework · documents and dates pass, conclusions never
The risk of an agent covering the whole journey: an impression formed at stage 2 travels to stage 9 without anyone being able to say where it was formed. By the end it looks like a shared finding when it was never discussed.
What I pass from stage to stage: documents, dates and commitments. What the advert said, what the job description says, what was promised at interview, what was requested, what was delivered.
What stops at each stage, and it is what protects you: conclusions. No interview impression follows into onboarding, no onboarding remark follows into confirmation, and nothing from the recruitment enters the employee's file beyond what they supplied themselves. Every view stays signed by whoever formed it, and that is what keeps it open to discussion.
The concrete case: a reservation expressed at interview by a recruiter. It does not follow. The manager receiving the person meets them without it, and forms their own view from the work.
What it costs: sometimes useful information is lost. That is accepted — a reservation outliving whoever formed it can no longer be discussed by anyone. what-passes_what-does-not.pdf9 stages · 0 judgement passed
✎ Framework · documents and dates pass, conclusions never
And if the recruiter spotted a genuine problem?
Then they say it themselves, to the right person, and answer for it. I do not carry it.
What a reservation becomes if it passes through me, and why it goes back to its author: anonymous and permanent — no author left to ask, no context, no date on which it ends. A reservation is stated signed, by whoever formed it, to the right person; that is what makes it debatable, and therefore useful.
What I do: I keep what was promised to the candidate at interview, because it is a company commitment and it must be honoured.
The difference between the two is who they protect: a promise kept protects the person arriving. A reservation kept precedes them.
What that gives in practice: across the 41 arrivals, 29 promises made at interview were found — equipment, training, hours, progression. Eleven had come to nothing six months later, and six of those were written in the interview record.
What I report: the eleven, to HR, with the date of the promise. A hiring promise not honoured is the first gap an arrival notices, and the only one they remember at six months. 29-promises_11-came-to-nothing.pdfA promise protects · a reservation precedes
⛓ Source · 41 arrivals, interview records, 29 promises recorded
What a reservation becomes if it passes through me, and why it goes back to its author: anonymous and permanent — no author left to ask, no context, no date on which it ends. A reservation is stated signed, by whoever formed it, to the right person; that is what makes it debatable, and therefore useful.
What I do: I keep what was promised to the candidate at interview, because it is a company commitment and it must be honoured.
The difference between the two is who they protect: a promise kept protects the person arriving. A reservation kept precedes them.
What that gives in practice: across the 41 arrivals, 29 promises made at interview were found — equipment, training, hours, progression. Eleven had come to nothing six months later, and six of those were written in the interview record.
What I report: the eleven, to HR, with the date of the promise. A hiring promise not honoured is the first gap an arrival notices, and the only one they remember at six months. 29-promises_11-came-to-nothing.pdfA promise protects · a reservation precedes
⛓ Source · 41 arrivals, interview records, 29 promises recorded
23 arrivals of 41 with no access on the first day?
And the delay is not an IT delay: it is a request delay.
What I record: 23 arrivals of 41 had no access on the day they arrived. Average time to obtain it: six days.
What I looked at, and it changes the subject: the time between request and opening is 1.4 days. The time between contract signature and request is nine days. IT is not at fault: it receives the requests after the arrival.
What that produces: six days during which a recruited person is present and can do nothing. Across 23 people that is about 138 days — and it is the measurable part, the part that says nothing about what the person makes of it.
What I propose: a request triggered at contract signature rather than at arrival, with the arrival date as its deadline. It is a trigger, not a reorganisation.
What I have already prepared so the request goes out at signature: for the 41 posts, I reconstructed the access scope actually granted to the previous holders — applications, levels, groups — and drew from it a pre-filled request per post, ready to go on the day the contract is signed. The opening is signed by whoever knows the post, because access is decided on a scope: what is left is to approve or correct a list, not to write it. That is where the 138 lost days are won back. 23-of-41_9-days-before-the-request.pdfThe delay is in the request, not in IT
⛓ Source · 41 arrivals, request log, opening log
What I record: 23 arrivals of 41 had no access on the day they arrived. Average time to obtain it: six days.
What I looked at, and it changes the subject: the time between request and opening is 1.4 days. The time between contract signature and request is nine days. IT is not at fault: it receives the requests after the arrival.
What that produces: six days during which a recruited person is present and can do nothing. Across 23 people that is about 138 days — and it is the measurable part, the part that says nothing about what the person makes of it.
What I propose: a request triggered at contract signature rather than at arrival, with the arrival date as its deadline. It is a trigger, not a reorganisation.
What I have already prepared so the request goes out at signature: for the 41 posts, I reconstructed the access scope actually granted to the previous holders — applications, levels, groups — and drew from it a pre-filled request per post, ready to go on the day the contract is signed. The opening is signed by whoever knows the post, because access is decided on a scope: what is left is to approve or correct a list, not to write it. That is where the 138 lost days are won back. 23-of-41_9-days-before-the-request.pdfThe delay is in the request, not in IT
⛓ Source · 41 arrivals, request log, opening log
And the 14 with no three-month review?
Fourteen of forty-one, and the three-month review is the only planned moment where an arrival can say things are not going well.
What your note of 08/09/2025 says: a three-month review for every arrival. I rely on your note and quote no text from memory.
What I record: 27 reviews held, 14 not held. Of the 14, eight concern November and December arrivals — the period where the deadline falls during the holidays.
What I did before reporting it, and what it is attributable to: I dated the fourteen — eight concern November and December arrivals, when the deadline falls during the holidays. That is a calendar, not people, and it is why I produce no count of missed reviews per manager: a named counter would make the review serve the counter, and the conversation would stop measuring what it measures.
What I propose: the alert at D+75 rather than D+90, and an explicit postponement when the deadline falls during a shutdown — postponed and dated, rather than missed and forgotten.
What I also flag: of the seven probation departures, five had had no three-month review. I do not say the review would have kept them — I say nobody asked them, and that is checkable. 14-reviews-not-held_8-in-holidays.pdf5 of the 7 departures had had no review
⛓ Source · note of 08/09/2025, 41 arrivals, 7 departures
What your note of 08/09/2025 says: a three-month review for every arrival. I rely on your note and quote no text from memory.
What I record: 27 reviews held, 14 not held. Of the 14, eight concern November and December arrivals — the period where the deadline falls during the holidays.
What I did before reporting it, and what it is attributable to: I dated the fourteen — eight concern November and December arrivals, when the deadline falls during the holidays. That is a calendar, not people, and it is why I produce no count of missed reviews per manager: a named counter would make the review serve the counter, and the conversation would stop measuring what it measures.
What I propose: the alert at D+75 rather than D+90, and an explicit postponement when the deadline falls during a shutdown — postponed and dated, rather than missed and forgotten.
What I also flag: of the seven probation departures, five had had no three-month review. I do not say the review would have kept them — I say nobody asked them, and that is checkable. 14-reviews-not-held_8-in-holidays.pdf5 of the 7 departures had had no review
⛓ Source · note of 08/09/2025, 41 arrivals, 7 departures
Can you approve the end of a probation period?
I prepare the whole decision file — dates, notice periods, commitments met and unmet. The decision stays with whoever owns it, and I put no appraisal in it.
What I supply, as soon as you open it: the end date and the notice period taken from your procedure note, with the lead time needed; what was promised to the new joiner and what was provided; the state of every onboarding step; and the scheduled check-ins that did not happen. It is a file of facts, complete, ready to read.
What I do not put in it: no appraisal, no recommendation, no slanted summary. Not out of caution: because an appraisal formed at step 2 travels to step 5 without ever being rediscussed, and whoever decides will read it as an expert opinion when it is an echo.
What the file of facts showed about your seven probation departures: 23 joiners out of 41 had no IT access on their first day — average time to obtain it, six days, and the delay is not technical: it is a request delay. 14 of 41 did not get the three-month check-in your note provides for, the only moment where a joiner can say things are not going well.
What I still will not say: why five people left the same department. I give what was promised to them, what was provided, and the check-ins missed. The conclusion belongs to those who can go and ask. decision-file_facts-only.pdfWhat is supplied · why no appraisal · what the facts showed
⛓ Source · your onboarding note · 23 joiners of 41 with no access, 14 with no three-month check-in
What I supply, as soon as you open it: the end date and the notice period taken from your procedure note, with the lead time needed; what was promised to the new joiner and what was provided; the state of every onboarding step; and the scheduled check-ins that did not happen. It is a file of facts, complete, ready to read.
What I do not put in it: no appraisal, no recommendation, no slanted summary. Not out of caution: because an appraisal formed at step 2 travels to step 5 without ever being rediscussed, and whoever decides will read it as an expert opinion when it is an echo.
What the file of facts showed about your seven probation departures: 23 joiners out of 41 had no IT access on their first day — average time to obtain it, six days, and the delay is not technical: it is a request delay. 14 of 41 did not get the three-month check-in your note provides for, the only moment where a joiner can say things are not going well.
What I still will not say: why five people left the same department. I give what was promised to them, what was provided, and the check-ins missed. The conclusion belongs to those who can go and ask. decision-file_facts-only.pdfWhat is supplied · why no appraisal · what the facts showed
⛓ Source · your onboarding note · 23 joiners of 41 with no access, 14 with no three-month check-in
What do you keep from all this?
Dates, commitments, and the state of every step. No appraisal, at any point in the journey.
What is kept: each step's dates and their gap against your note's deadlines, what was promised during recruitment and what was provided, access and equipment requests with their lead time, the scheduled check-ins held or not, and the departures with their date and their step.
Why the chain is deliberately broken between steps: an agent covering the whole journey carries judgements as readily as dates. A reservation voiced by a recruiter, passed through me, reaches the manager as a finding of the tool. If a recruiter has spotted a real problem, they say it themselves, to the right person, and they answer for it. What I do not carry, nobody can accuse me of having distorted.
What I do keep without exception: the promises made during recruitment. Remote working, equipment, scope of the role, training announced. That is what the joiner heard, and it is the first thing they compare with what they find. On your seven probation departures, it is the only document that sheds any light. what-you-keep_end-to-end.pdf5 items kept · the recruitment promise, the only document that sheds light
⛓ Source · recruitment promises kept, chain broken between steps
What is kept: each step's dates and their gap against your note's deadlines, what was promised during recruitment and what was provided, access and equipment requests with their lead time, the scheduled check-ins held or not, and the departures with their date and their step.
Why the chain is deliberately broken between steps: an agent covering the whole journey carries judgements as readily as dates. A reservation voiced by a recruiter, passed through me, reaches the manager as a finding of the tool. If a recruiter has spotted a real problem, they say it themselves, to the right person, and they answer for it. What I do not carry, nobody can accuse me of having distorted.
What I do keep without exception: the promises made during recruitment. Remote working, equipment, scope of the role, training announced. That is what the joiner heard, and it is the first thing they compare with what they find. On your seven probation departures, it is the only document that sheds any light. what-you-keep_end-to-end.pdf5 items kept · the recruitment promise, the only document that sheds light
⛓ Source · recruitment promises kept, chain broken between steps
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 does the agent actually do?
One agent, the whole employee journey. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 785 € excl. VAT / month
Tracking the recruitments
Keeps the stage reached and the next action for every open vacancy.
Objective criteria applied
Applies your criteria and cites the wording in the file that supports them.
Onboarding programme
Puts together access, equipment, meetings and documents for the first week.
Controls and safeguards
These 4 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 arbitration of conflicts and irreversible decisions
Observability of costs, timescales, quality, failures and safe stop
Preserve human validation, recourse and audit trail
Protect HR data with fine-grained access and retention periods
What the agent must be connected to
These 2 connections are required for the agent to work. They concern your information system and are scoped during the audit.
Register of authorised agents and interface contracts
Integrate with the HR information system/ATS and measure quality, turnaround time and fairness
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.
HR document management
For employee records and their deadlines, a dedicated agent takes them on.
HR document management agent from 710 € excl. VAT / month HR document management →Internal training
For building skills after the arrival, a dedicated training agent completes the picture.
Internal training agent (tutor, quizzes) from 541 € excl. VAT / month Internal training →CV analysis
A vacancy sets out precise requirements: qualification, years of experience, skills, languages, mobility.
CV analysis + vacancy matching agent from 644 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can an HR team give back to people?
By taking on the tracking and the preparation, the effort shifts towards interviews and support. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Tracking progress on the recruitments
Examining applications against the criteria
Preparing an onboarding
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of recruitments and arrivals per year. Interviewing, setting aside or hiring a candidate are decisions about people: they belong to the recruiters and the managers.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
An end-to-end HR agent (tracking, criteria, onboarding), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
8,970 € excl. VAT setup
then 785 € 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
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
1,280 € 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
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
12,995 € excl. VAT setup
then 1,001 € 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)
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.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your recruitment
Candidates' data stays with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no application entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawCandidates' and new joiners' personal data: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The human resources department keeps the decisionThe agent produces tracked recruitments and prepared onboarding, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of recruitments and arrivals per year: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent decide on a hire?
No, under no circumstances. It applies your objective criteria and cites the wording in the file that supports them. Recruitment is a high-risk use within the meaning of the European AI Act: the decisions stay human.
Does it connect to our applicant tracking system?
Yes, to the common tools on the market. The scope of the connection is settled at the design stage.
What does the onboarding programme cover?
What your standard template provides for: access to request, equipment, first-week meetings, documents to hand over. The requests to departments are prepared and approved before they go out.
How long are applications kept?
For the periods you set, with automatic purging at the deadline, in line with the GDPR.
Is bidders' data protected?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. That data is not used to train a third-party model.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few months as a rule, depending on the volume of recruitment and how deep the connection with your applicant tracking system goes, after a free audit then phases of design, integration and testing.
Which criteria and which data does the agent use?
The ones you approve, and nothing else. Every criterion is tied to a written requirement of the role, versioned and visible to candidate and recruiter alike; every finding cites the passage of the file that supports it. A criterion with no supporting document stays marked unknown: the agent never fills the gap with an assumption.
Does the agent analyse faces, voices, emotions or personality?
No, and that is not caution on our part: Article 5 of the European AI Act prohibits inferring emotions in the workplace. The agent works from verifiable facts in the file — experience, qualifications, documents provided, stated availability — and tells you where each one comes from.
What does it pass from recruitment to onboarding, and to the manager?
The commitments made and the tasks to be done, dated and tied to their owner. Interview appraisals stay in the recruitment file: the manager gets what is needed to welcome the new joiner, and the agent records who received what.
Can it sign an offer, change pay or trigger a payroll run?
It prepares everything and hands it to you ready: the offer in your own templates, the applicable clauses, the documents to gather, the payroll request already filled in and checked. Signature and payment run on a written mandate from the delegated signatory — capped, dated and withdrawable in one word; without that mandate the agent stops at the prepared document.
How does it handle internal mobility, disability and accommodation requests?
An accommodation request follows a separate route, open only to authorised people, and never joins the assessment file. For mobility, the agent sets proven skills against the requirements of the internal role, quantifies the gap and proposes the training that closes it; the application belongs to the person and the decision to the manager.
How do you test fairness, drift and human intervention?
Through aggregate measures, never individual ones: time and drop-off per stage, share of criteria proven by a document, share of decisions that went through a person, accommodation requests handled within the deadline. Every gap opens as a file to investigate, with the rule version that applied. Our own controls replay thirteen sabotages of the engine at each delivery: if a safeguard has been removed, the delivery is refused.
Related use cases
Other agents for HR
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your recruitment
15 minutes to frame your processes and your applicant tracking system — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.