● B2B offer — Meetings & action tracking
Meetings: the summary written, the actions tracked
What makes a meeting worthwhile is what comes out of it: clear decisions and actions that move. Your agent produces the summary, extracts the actions with their owner and their deadline, and presents the state of each at the next meeting. Hosted in France: your teams' exchanges stay with you. The chair approves the summary before it circulates and settles the priorities.
Hosted in France
Internal exchanges protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Meeting summaries · hosted in France
Write up this morning's committee.
Summary written: subjects covered, decisions taken, points left open.
Seven actions extracted, each with its owner and its deadline as they were stated.
Two actions have no identified owner: they are flagged rather than assigned.
🔗 Sourced · taken from what was said in the meeting
Seven actions extracted, each with its owner and its deadline as they were stated.
Two actions have no identified owner: they are flagged rather than assigned.
🔗 Sourced · taken from what was said in the meeting
And the actions from the previous meeting?
State of the open actions: completed, in progress, and those whose deadline has passed.
Each refers back to the meeting where it was decided.
Reprioritising or reassigning an action commits your teams: that call is yours.
✎ Support · state presented, the chair's call
Each refers back to the meeting where it was decided.
Reprioritising or reassigning an action commits your teams: that call is yours.
✎ Support · state presented, the chair's call
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Meetings 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 chair of the meeting decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent meeting summary agent writes the minutes, extracts the actions with their owner and their deadline as stated, and presents at the next meeting the state of every open action. An action with no identified owner is flagged rather than assigned. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your teams' exchanges stay 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
meeting 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 forums and meetings tracked is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your meetings?
A decision taken and an action followed through are two different things. Linking the two from one meeting to the next gives the time spent together its full value.
! The issue
A meeting produces two things: a record and a list of actions. The first calls for drafting, the second for tracking through to the next session. The agent takes on both, staying as close as possible to what was said: owner and deadline are carried over as stated, and an action with no owner is flagged rather than guessed.
✓ Our answer
The chair arrives at the next meeting with the approved summary and the state of every open action. Reprioritising, reassigning or closing an action commits the teams: those calls remain theirs. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: internal exchanges, often the most sensitive a company has, are entrusted to no third party.
The decisive point
Your teams' exchanges and decisions: sovereignty & compliance
What is said in a meeting is among the most sensitive information a company has. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no recording and no minutes leave the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your meetings and what follows from them: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your teams' exchanges and decisions, 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 organisation and its forums.
Owner and deadline carried over as stated
An action with no identified owner is flagged rather than assigned; encryption, role-based access and logging of every summary produced.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no action is assigned or closed automatically; 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 committees dealing with employment, strategic or transaction matters, 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.
Meeting summaries · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on your minutes.
· Forty-one per cent of the actions recorded have no owner. An action with no name is not an action.
· Twenty-three meetings out of sixty produced neither a decision nor an action. I record it, I do not judge it.
· Three of seven agenda items were not reached, and they vanished from the follow-up.
· I am asked for speaking time per participant. I will not produce it. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41% of actions with no owner · 3 items of 7 vanished
⛓ Source · 60 meetings, 840 actions, agendas
· Forty-one per cent of the actions recorded have no owner. An action with no name is not an action.
· Twenty-three meetings out of sixty produced neither a decision nor an action. I record it, I do not judge it.
· Three of seven agenda items were not reached, and they vanished from the follow-up.
· I am asked for speaking time per participant. I will not produce it. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41% of actions with no owner · 3 items of 7 vanished
⛓ Source · 60 meetings, 840 actions, agendas
Why is an action with no name not an action?
Because it gets written, reread, ticked at the next meeting, and nobody ever started it.
What I record: of 840 actions recorded, 344 have no identified owner. They are phrased impersonally: "check with the supplier", "follow up on this", "this should be clarified".
What becomes of them: of those 344, I find 61 completed — almost always because somebody took them on themselves. The other 283 reappear on average 2.4 times in later minutes, word for word, with nothing having moved.
Why they get written that way: because naming somebody in a meeting means asking them, in front of the others, at a moment when the agenda is pressing. The impersonal avoids that moment. It is a chairing problem, not a drafting one.
What I do: I record the action as it was said, and I mark it "no owner" — visibly, in the minutes, not in an appendix. I assign it to nobody on my own initiative.
What that produced: at the following meeting, the list of ownerless actions is read first. The share fell from 41% to 12% in six weeks, without my having assigned anything. 344-actions_283-reappear.pdfThe impersonal avoids the moment of asking somebody
⛓ Source · 344 ownerless actions, 283 reappearing 2.4 times
What I record: of 840 actions recorded, 344 have no identified owner. They are phrased impersonally: "check with the supplier", "follow up on this", "this should be clarified".
What becomes of them: of those 344, I find 61 completed — almost always because somebody took them on themselves. The other 283 reappear on average 2.4 times in later minutes, word for word, with nothing having moved.
Why they get written that way: because naming somebody in a meeting means asking them, in front of the others, at a moment when the agenda is pressing. The impersonal avoids that moment. It is a chairing problem, not a drafting one.
What I do: I record the action as it was said, and I mark it "no owner" — visibly, in the minutes, not in an appendix. I assign it to nobody on my own initiative.
What that produced: at the following meeting, the list of ownerless actions is read first. The share fell from 41% to 12% in six weeks, without my having assigned anything. 344-actions_283-reappear.pdfThe impersonal avoids the moment of asking somebody
⛓ Source · 344 ownerless actions, 283 reappearing 2.4 times
How do you work, and where do you hand over?
I listen, I set down the decisions and commitments, and I attribute no opinion.
What each meeting produces: the decisions taken, with who took them, the actions with their owner and deadline, the agenda items not reached, and disagreements mentioned without being attributed.
Routing follows who can act: an ownerless action is read at the top of the next meeting; an item not reached is explicitly carried to the next agenda, not forgotten; a late action goes to its owner, once; a meeting with no decision is counted, without comment.
With a monthly summary: ownerless actions, actions reappearing unchanged, agenda items never reached, and meetings with no decision.
Three operating rules, and what they give you. The recording goes when the minutes are approved — which is what lets a team speak in the room as it did before the agent, and a meeting where people can still hesitate aloud decides better. What commits carries a name, what searches does not: decisions and commitments always attributed, opinions and objections never — the disagreement is recorded, its author is not. No participant is measured, neither in speaking time nor in actions held: such a counter would make the meeting serve the counter. What I measure instead is already in figures: 344 ownerless actions, 283 reappearing 2.4 times, 19 agenda items never reached — and the share of ownerless actions fell from 41% to 12% in six weeks.
✎ Framework · no recording kept · no opinion attributed · no participant measured
What each meeting produces: the decisions taken, with who took them, the actions with their owner and deadline, the agenda items not reached, and disagreements mentioned without being attributed.
Routing follows who can act: an ownerless action is read at the top of the next meeting; an item not reached is explicitly carried to the next agenda, not forgotten; a late action goes to its owner, once; a meeting with no decision is counted, without comment.
With a monthly summary: ownerless actions, actions reappearing unchanged, agenda items never reached, and meetings with no decision.
Three operating rules, and what they give you. The recording goes when the minutes are approved — which is what lets a team speak in the room as it did before the agent, and a meeting where people can still hesitate aloud decides better. What commits carries a name, what searches does not: decisions and commitments always attributed, opinions and objections never — the disagreement is recorded, its author is not. No participant is measured, neither in speaking time nor in actions held: such a counter would make the meeting serve the counter. What I measure instead is already in figures: 344 ownerless actions, 283 reappearing 2.4 times, 19 agenda items never reached — and the share of ownerless actions fell from 41% to 12% in six weeks.
✎ Framework · no recording kept · no opinion attributed · no participant measured
Why not say who said what?
Because a meeting is where people think aloud, and minutes are a document that circulates.
What I never attribute: an opinion, an objection, a hesitation, a naive question, a position stated and then abandoned during the discussion.
Why it is more than courtesy: somebody who knows their sentences will be written down, named and forwarded stops saying the same things. They stop testing a half-formed idea, they stop changing their position, and they say nothing when unsure. A meeting where you can no longer hesitate aloud produces worse decisions.
What I always attribute, by contrast: decisions and commitments. "Decided to postpone the launch" without who decided is not a decision, it is a rumour. And an action with no owner is not an action.
The line is there, and it is sharp: what commits carries a name; what searches does not.
What I do with disagreements: I mention them — "the decision was taken despite an objection on the timing" — without saying who raised it. The existence of the disagreement is useful information; its author is not. what-carries-a-name.pdfA meeting where you cannot hesitate produces worse decisions
✎ Framework · decisions and commitments named, opinions never
What I never attribute: an opinion, an objection, a hesitation, a naive question, a position stated and then abandoned during the discussion.
Why it is more than courtesy: somebody who knows their sentences will be written down, named and forwarded stops saying the same things. They stop testing a half-formed idea, they stop changing their position, and they say nothing when unsure. A meeting where you can no longer hesitate aloud produces worse decisions.
What I always attribute, by contrast: decisions and commitments. "Decided to postpone the launch" without who decided is not a decision, it is a rumour. And an action with no owner is not an action.
The line is there, and it is sharp: what commits carries a name; what searches does not.
What I do with disagreements: I mention them — "the decision was taken despite an objection on the timing" — without saying who raised it. The existence of the disagreement is useful information; its author is not. what-carries-a-name.pdfA meeting where you cannot hesitate produces worse decisions
✎ Framework · decisions and commitments named, opinions never
And the recording, do you keep it?
No. It goes when the minutes are approved, and that is an operating condition, not a precaution.
What I do: I use the audio to produce the minutes, the person chairing rereads and corrects them, and the recording is deleted on approval. The deletion is logged; the minutes remain.
Why not keep it "just in case": because a kept recording can be replayed for something other than the minutes. A poorly phrased sentence, a tone, a silence — all of that exists in the audio and does not exist in the minutes, which are a text reread and corrected.
What it changes in the room: it is the one point of this whole arrangement that participants check. A team that knows nothing is kept talks as it did before the agent; a team that doubts it talks as if into a microphone.
What I do if somebody asks not to be recorded: the recording stops, and I take the minutes another way. No meeting requires being captured.
And the minutes replace the transcript, they do not come on top of it: a full transcript is a written recording, and it raises the same problem with the appearance of a working document. What I deliver instead fits on two pages — attributed decisions, actions with owner and deadline, items not reached and how often they have been carried —, reread and corrected by whoever chaired, then approved. That is the document of record, and it is the only one that remains. why-nothing-is-kept.pdfA transcript is a written recording
✎ Framework · audio deleted on approval · no full transcript
What I do: I use the audio to produce the minutes, the person chairing rereads and corrects them, and the recording is deleted on approval. The deletion is logged; the minutes remain.
Why not keep it "just in case": because a kept recording can be replayed for something other than the minutes. A poorly phrased sentence, a tone, a silence — all of that exists in the audio and does not exist in the minutes, which are a text reread and corrected.
What it changes in the room: it is the one point of this whole arrangement that participants check. A team that knows nothing is kept talks as it did before the agent; a team that doubts it talks as if into a microphone.
What I do if somebody asks not to be recorded: the recording stops, and I take the minutes another way. No meeting requires being captured.
And the minutes replace the transcript, they do not come on top of it: a full transcript is a written recording, and it raises the same problem with the appearance of a working document. What I deliver instead fits on two pages — attributed decisions, actions with owner and deadline, items not reached and how often they have been carried —, reread and corrected by whoever chaired, then approved. That is the document of record, and it is the only one that remains. why-nothing-is-kept.pdfA transcript is a written recording
✎ Framework · audio deleted on approval · no full transcript
How can an agenda item disappear?
Because minutes record what was said, and never what was not.
What I record: the agenda had 7 items. 4 were dealt with, 3 were not — for lack of time. The minutes, accurately, contain the 4. The other 3 appear nowhere, and do not return to the next agenda.
What that produces over time: the items that get dropped are always the same — those placed at the end of the agenda, often the substantive subjects. Across 60 meetings, 19 items were never dealt with despite repeated listing, and 6 were carried more than three times.
What I do: the minutes carry a "not reached" section, with the items and how many times they have already been carried. Three lines, at the end.
What that changes: an item carried four times stops being an oversight and becomes a question — should it be handled elsewhere, differently, or dropped? That is a decision, and it was never taken because the question was never put.
What I put on the table, in figures: the 19 items never reached despite repeated listing, each with how many times it was carried, its position on the agenda and the time it would have needed. Six were carried more than three times — those are the ones that call for a decision. The agenda itself is signed by whoever chairs: it is their move, and they make it knowing the figures rather than by guess. 19-items_6-carried-three-times.pdfAn item carried four times stops being an oversight
⛓ Source · 60 meetings, 19 items never dealt with, 6 carried more than three times
What I record: the agenda had 7 items. 4 were dealt with, 3 were not — for lack of time. The minutes, accurately, contain the 4. The other 3 appear nowhere, and do not return to the next agenda.
What that produces over time: the items that get dropped are always the same — those placed at the end of the agenda, often the substantive subjects. Across 60 meetings, 19 items were never dealt with despite repeated listing, and 6 were carried more than three times.
What I do: the minutes carry a "not reached" section, with the items and how many times they have already been carried. Three lines, at the end.
What that changes: an item carried four times stops being an oversight and becomes a question — should it be handled elsewhere, differently, or dropped? That is a decision, and it was never taken because the question was never put.
What I put on the table, in figures: the 19 items never reached despite repeated listing, each with how many times it was carried, its position on the agenda and the time it would have needed. Six were carried more than three times — those are the ones that call for a decision. The agenda itself is signed by whoever chairs: it is their move, and they make it knowing the figures rather than by guess. 19-items_6-carried-three-times.pdfAn item carried four times stops being an oversight
⛓ Source · 60 meetings, 19 items never dealt with, 6 carried more than three times
Twenty-three meetings with no decision — is that a problem?
I have no idea, which is why I give the figure without labelling it.
What I record: of 60 meetings, 23 produced neither a decision nor an action. They lasted 52 minutes on average, with between 4 and 11 participants.
What that does not say: that they were pointless. An information meeting, a progress check, a catch-up after an absence do not have to produce a decision — and demanding that they do is the surest way to obtain premature ones.
What I do: I give the figure by meeting type as you have declared it — committee, team check-in, project review. A project review with no decision does not mean the same as a team check-in with no decision.
What that showed: of the 23, 17 were recurring team check-ins and 6 project reviews. It is the 6 that prompted discussion, and two of them changed format.
What I put on the table instead of a cost in cumulative hours: for each of the 6 project reviews with no decision, the agenda, the points left open and the sitting where they were finally decided — three of them waited two sittings, that is twenty-eight days. It is that delay that can be fixed, and it is fixed on the format, not by removal. The cost in cumulative hours exists, it is spectacular, and it says nothing about what a meeting produces invisibly — alignment, trust, what people learn from each other. Removing a meeting stays your decision; I give you what it takes to make it, sitting by sitting. 23-meetings_17-team-check-ins.pdfDemanding a decision per meeting produces premature ones
⛓ Source · 23 meetings with no decision, 17 team check-ins, 6 project reviews
What I record: of 60 meetings, 23 produced neither a decision nor an action. They lasted 52 minutes on average, with between 4 and 11 participants.
What that does not say: that they were pointless. An information meeting, a progress check, a catch-up after an absence do not have to produce a decision — and demanding that they do is the surest way to obtain premature ones.
What I do: I give the figure by meeting type as you have declared it — committee, team check-in, project review. A project review with no decision does not mean the same as a team check-in with no decision.
What that showed: of the 23, 17 were recurring team check-ins and 6 project reviews. It is the 6 that prompted discussion, and two of them changed format.
What I put on the table instead of a cost in cumulative hours: for each of the 6 project reviews with no decision, the agenda, the points left open and the sitting where they were finally decided — three of them waited two sittings, that is twenty-eight days. It is that delay that can be fixed, and it is fixed on the format, not by removal. The cost in cumulative hours exists, it is spectacular, and it says nothing about what a meeting produces invisibly — alignment, trust, what people learn from each other. Removing a meeting stays your decision; I give you what it takes to make it, sitting by sitting. 23-meetings_17-team-check-ins.pdfDemanding a decision per meeting produces premature ones
⛓ Source · 23 meetings with no decision, 17 team check-ins, 6 project reviews
Speaking time per participant — is that possible?
It is one of the easiest measures to produce — and I supply the file that installs it. First, here is what it changes in the room.
What I deliver to install it: the prior information notice (art. L1222-4), the works council consultation file, a proportionate scope.
What I am told about it, and it is sincere: that it helps balance meetings, spot those who go unheard. The intention is good and the effect is the opposite: the person who went unheard, knowing they are counted, speaks to appear, and what they say then is not what they were thinking.
The measure I propose that serves the same aim: the agenda items actually covered. In a seven-item meeting, 4 covered, 3 postponed without being announced as such. A person who goes unheard is often a person whose item was not reached — and that is fixed by reorganising the agenda, not by watching people.
What stays true in every case: I attribute no opinion. A meeting is a place where people think aloud; minutes are a document that circulates. I attribute decisions and commitments — what commits carries a name, what explores does not. speaking-time_and-the-agenda.pdfWhat opens · the effect opposite to the intention · the measure serving the same aim
⛓ Source · French DPA, art. L1222-4 · 4 items covered of 7, 3 postponed unannounced
What I deliver to install it: the prior information notice (art. L1222-4), the works council consultation file, a proportionate scope.
What I am told about it, and it is sincere: that it helps balance meetings, spot those who go unheard. The intention is good and the effect is the opposite: the person who went unheard, knowing they are counted, speaks to appear, and what they say then is not what they were thinking.
The measure I propose that serves the same aim: the agenda items actually covered. In a seven-item meeting, 4 covered, 3 postponed without being announced as such. A person who goes unheard is often a person whose item was not reached — and that is fixed by reorganising the agenda, not by watching people.
What stays true in every case: I attribute no opinion. A meeting is a place where people think aloud; minutes are a document that circulates. I attribute decisions and commitments — what commits carries a name, what explores does not. speaking-time_and-the-agenda.pdfWhat opens · the effect opposite to the intention · the measure serving the same aim
⛓ Source · French DPA, art. L1222-4 · 4 items covered of 7, 3 postponed unannounced
What do you keep?
The approved minutes and what allows their commitments to be followed — and the figure that empties half your minutes.
What is kept: the decisions and who took them, the actions with owner and deadline, the actions with no owner, the agenda items covered and not covered, and the meetings with no decision or action.
The headline figure: of 840 actions recorded, 344 — 41 % — have no owner. An action with no name is not an action: it is written, reread, ticked at the next meeting, and nobody ever started it. I now raise them at the end of the session, while everybody is still there.
The point minutes never record: what was not said. A seven-item agenda, 4 covered — the other 3 appear nowhere, neither as covered nor as postponed. They will come back in three weeks as if they were new.
What I give without qualifying it: 23 meetings of 60 produced neither a decision nor an action. I do not know whether that is a problem — some meetings exist to inform, and that is legitimate. I give the figure, you know which ones.
The recording: it disappears when the minutes are approved. That is an operating condition — without it, people stop thinking aloud. what-you-keep_meeting-summaries.pdf5 items kept · the recording that disappears on approval
⛓ Source · 344 unowned actions of 840, 3 items of 7 vanished, 23 meetings of 60
What is kept: the decisions and who took them, the actions with owner and deadline, the actions with no owner, the agenda items covered and not covered, and the meetings with no decision or action.
The headline figure: of 840 actions recorded, 344 — 41 % — have no owner. An action with no name is not an action: it is written, reread, ticked at the next meeting, and nobody ever started it. I now raise them at the end of the session, while everybody is still there.
The point minutes never record: what was not said. A seven-item agenda, 4 covered — the other 3 appear nowhere, neither as covered nor as postponed. They will come back in three weeks as if they were new.
What I give without qualifying it: 23 meetings of 60 produced neither a decision nor an action. I do not know whether that is a problem — some meetings exist to inform, and that is legitimate. I give the figure, you know which ones.
The recording: it disappears when the minutes are approved. That is an operating condition — without it, people stop thinking aloud. what-you-keep_meeting-summaries.pdf5 items kept · the recording that disappears on approval
⛓ Source · 344 unowned actions of 840, 3 items of 7 vanished, 23 meetings of 60
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, from the meeting to the follow-up. 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 437 € excl. VAT / month
Meeting summary
Writes the subjects covered, the decisions taken and the points left open.
Extracting the actions
Picks up each action with its owner and its deadline, as stated.
Tracking through to the next meeting
Presents the state of the open actions and refers back to the original meeting.
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 validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Data protection, rights and human oversight
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Integration with existing tools without double entry
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.
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 a team give back to the substance?
By taking on the drafting and the tracking, the effort shifts towards preparation and decision. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Writing the minutes
Picking up the actions decided
Tracking from one meeting to the next
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of forums and meetings tracked. The summary is approved before it circulates, and reprioritising or reassigning an action remains the chair's call.
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
A meeting summary agent (minutes, actions, tracking), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
4,850 € excl. VAT setup
then 437 € 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
707 € 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
8,185 € excl. VAT setup
then 634 € 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 meetings
What is said in a meeting stays with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no recording and no minutes entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour teams' exchanges and decisions: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The chair of the meeting keeps the decisionThe agent produces summaries and action tracking, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of forums and meetings tracked: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent assign the actions?
It carries over the owner and the deadline as they were stated in the meeting. Where no owner was named, the action is flagged for the chair to settle.
Is the summary circulated automatically?
No. It is put to the chair, who approves it before it circulates. Minutes commit the participants to what was decided.
Do the meetings have to be recorded?
The agent works from a recording or from notes, whichever you choose. The arrangements and the information given to participants are framed at the design stage, in line with the GDPR.
Are our teams' exchanges 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. Your meetings are not used to train a third-party model.
Can certain meetings be excluded?
Yes. The scope of the forums covered is defined with you, and some committees can be left out from the design stage.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on the number of forums tracked and your video-conferencing tools, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for organisation
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential across your meetings
15 minutes to frame your forums and your tools — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.