We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Business offer — Human resourcesPreparing appraisals: your frameworks, your materials ready
A good appraisal is prepared, and preparing it mostly means gathering what already exists: the company's framework, the previous record, the objectives set. Your agent brings those elements together in your template, recalls the points left open and proposes the questions from your framework. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With the 100% Sovereign package, your employees' data stays with you. The agent expresses no assessment — evaluating a person rests with the manager, and with them alone.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Appraisal preparation · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Prepare the material for Wednesday's annual appraisal.
Material prepared in your company framework: sections in the usual order, with the corresponding questions.
The record of the previous appraisal is recalled, along with the points left open and the objectives that had been set.
The assessment areas are empty: they are yours.
✎ Action · material ready, assessment yours
The record of the previous appraisal is recalled, along with the points left open and the objectives that had been set.
The assessment areas are empty: they are yours.
✎ Action · material ready, assessment yours
Can you tell me whether the objectives were met?
I recall the objectives as they were worded and the factual elements you have recorded through the year.
Judging whether they were met belongs to the manager: it concerns a person and may affect their career.
⚖ AI Act · no automated assessment of a person
Judging whether they were met belongs to the manager: it concerns a person and may affect their career.
⚖ AI Act · no automated assessment of a person
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
HR data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Employee data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The manager decidesThe agent carries out what you have authorised
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent appraisal preparation agent brings together in your framework what already exists — the previous record, the objectives set, the points left open — and proposes the corresponding questions. It expresses no assessment and rates no one: evaluating an employee may affect their career and rests with the manager. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your employees' data is entrusted to no one, 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 with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
3
HR uses ready to deploy
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of appraisals is confirmed by a pilot.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
One package, one agent
An appraisal preparation assistant (frameworks, history, questions), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
2,110 € excl. VAT setup
then 271 € 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
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
391 € 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
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
4,110 € excl. VAT setup
then 381 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 1,058 € (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.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Included in the package: hosting and AI consumption up to the volume of your capacity tier, in documents, exchanges, tokens and storage; beyond that, re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, tracked in your client area as usage statements are issued. 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 for the package chosen, in France by default, 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.
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several kinds of appraisal to prepare, with a link to a neighbouring agent. The agent carries out by itself the preparation you authorise it to do; it passes no judgement and rates no one: appraising an employee is a matter for the manager.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 271 € excl. VAT / month
Material in your framework
Prepares the document with the company's sections and the corresponding questions.
Recalling the history
Takes up the previous record, the objectives set and the points left open.
Points to clarify
Gathers the factual elements recorded, without drawing any conclusion from them.
Controls and safeguards
These 5 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
Apply transparent criteria and avoid automated decisions
Preserve human validation, recourse and audit trail
Protect HR data with fine-grained access and retention periods
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.
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.
Does your need fall outside this?
Build your agent
In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Appraisal preparation · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Four flags this morning on your appraisals.
· Twenty-three employees have had no appraisal for more than two years against the frequency set by your procedure note of 12/01/2025. Four are beyond six years.
· Fourteen training requests made at appraisal have never received an answer, written or spoken. The oldest dates from 2022.
· Of last year's 118 records, 72 carry objectives dated the day of the appraisal. They were not set during the year: they were written during the meeting.
· Eleven employees have changed manager since their last appraisal. Their new manager does not have the previous record. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 14 requests with no answer
⛓ Source · procedure note of 12/01/2025, 118 records, appraisal register, org chart
· Twenty-three employees have had no appraisal for more than two years against the frequency set by your procedure note of 12/01/2025. Four are beyond six years.
· Fourteen training requests made at appraisal have never received an answer, written or spoken. The oldest dates from 2022.
· Of last year's 118 records, 72 carry objectives dated the day of the appraisal. They were not set during the year: they were written during the meeting.
· Eleven employees have changed manager since their last appraisal. Their new manager does not have the previous record. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 14 requests with no answer
⛓ Source · procedure note of 12/01/2025, 118 records, appraisal register, org chart
The fourteen training requests with no answer?
Fourteen people were asked what they wanted, and nobody answered them.
What I record: fourteen requests written in the record's dedicated section. None carries any follow-up — no agreement, no refusal, no "to be revisited", no referral to the training plan.
What I do not say: that they should have been accepted. A request can be refused, and a reasoned refusal is an answer.
What I do record: of the fourteen, six employees restated the same request at the following appraisal. Four dropped it. And four had no following appraisal.
What that does to the coming meeting: the manager will reopen a form containing a 2022 request that was never answered. If they do not know before going in, they learn it in front of the employee — with nothing to say.
What I propose: the list of fourteen, with the date of the request and the fact that no follow-up appears. Before the meeting, not during it. 14-requests_0-answers.pdf6 restated · 4 dropped · 4 with no next appraisal
⛓ Source · 118 records, training section, appraisal register
What I record: fourteen requests written in the record's dedicated section. None carries any follow-up — no agreement, no refusal, no "to be revisited", no referral to the training plan.
What I do not say: that they should have been accepted. A request can be refused, and a reasoned refusal is an answer.
What I do record: of the fourteen, six employees restated the same request at the following appraisal. Four dropped it. And four had no following appraisal.
What that does to the coming meeting: the manager will reopen a form containing a 2022 request that was never answered. If they do not know before going in, they learn it in front of the employee — with nothing to say.
What I propose: the list of fourteen, with the date of the request and the fact that no follow-up appears. Before the meeting, not during it. 14-requests_0-answers.pdf6 restated · 4 dropped · 4 with no next appraisal
⛓ Source · 118 records, training section, appraisal register
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: appraisal records, the register of dates, your procedure note, and the org chart.
Routing follows what can still be of use: an overdue frequency goes to HR, not to the manager — it is an organisation, not an individual fault; a request with no answer to the manager, before the meeting, never after; a change of manager to the new manager, with what the employee is entitled to see; an objective dated the day of the meeting to whoever designs the form.
With a chase: 7 days before the meeting, then the day before. Then a monthly summary: by department and type of gap, never by employee and never by manager.
Three operating rules, and the first governs the rest. The appraisal is written and signed by the manager, in the room — no rating proposed, no judgement from an earlier appraisal carried forward: an opinion that outlives whoever formed it can no longer be challenged by anyone. What I hand over before they walk in is complete: the objectives as they were recorded, with their dates, the training requests left unanswered and for how long, the history of reporting lines, and the date of the last appraisal. The manager walks in knowing; they no longer discover a 2022 request in front of the employee. And what you have not opened to me is invisible: I name it rather than assume it does not exist.
✎ Framework · no wording, no rating, no judgement carried forward
Routing follows what can still be of use: an overdue frequency goes to HR, not to the manager — it is an organisation, not an individual fault; a request with no answer to the manager, before the meeting, never after; a change of manager to the new manager, with what the employee is entitled to see; an objective dated the day of the meeting to whoever designs the form.
With a chase: 7 days before the meeting, then the day before. Then a monthly summary: by department and type of gap, never by employee and never by manager.
Three operating rules, and the first governs the rest. The appraisal is written and signed by the manager, in the room — no rating proposed, no judgement from an earlier appraisal carried forward: an opinion that outlives whoever formed it can no longer be challenged by anyone. What I hand over before they walk in is complete: the objectives as they were recorded, with their dates, the training requests left unanswered and for how long, the history of reporting lines, and the date of the last appraisal. The manager walks in knowing; they no longer discover a 2022 request in front of the employee. And what you have not opened to me is invisible: I name it rather than assume it does not exist.
✎ Framework · no wording, no rating, no judgement carried forward
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Concretely, what do you prepare for a manager?
Five dated facts, and not one line of assessment.
What I supply:
· the date of the last appraisal, and the gap against your note's frequency;
· what was agreed last time, quoted literally, and whether any follow-up appears;
· the requests the employee made and their answer, or its absence;
· training taken since, with dates;
· changes that have occurred — post, department, manager, working hours.
What I do not supply: an assessment, a rating, a proposed objective, a sentence to copy into the record, nor anything about how the person performs.
Why not the sentence to copy, though I am often asked for it: because an appraisal record is a document the employee reads, signs, and which can be produced later. A sentence I propose and a manager approves without thinking it stays written in their file.
What it changes in practice: in a dry run, managers went in knowing on average 3.4 facts they had not known — most often a request left unanswered. 5-facts_0-assessment.pdf3.4 unknown facts on average
⛓ Source · note of 12/01/2025, earlier records, training register, dry run
What I supply:
· the date of the last appraisal, and the gap against your note's frequency;
· what was agreed last time, quoted literally, and whether any follow-up appears;
· the requests the employee made and their answer, or its absence;
· training taken since, with dates;
· changes that have occurred — post, department, manager, working hours.
What I do not supply: an assessment, a rating, a proposed objective, a sentence to copy into the record, nor anything about how the person performs.
Why not the sentence to copy, though I am often asked for it: because an appraisal record is a document the employee reads, signs, and which can be produced later. A sentence I propose and a manager approves without thinking it stays written in their file.
What it changes in practice: in a dry run, managers went in knowing on average 3.4 facts they had not known — most often a request left unanswered. 5-facts_0-assessment.pdf3.4 unknown facts on average
⛓ Source · note of 12/01/2025, earlier records, training register, dry run
And the eleven employees who changed manager?
Their new manager does not have the previous record, and I do not give them all of it.
What I record: eleven employees have changed manager since their last appraisal. The new manager goes in without knowing what was agreed.
What I pass on: what binds the company — an objective set, training promised, a request made, a deadline announced. These are facts, and the employee knows them, having signed the record.
What stays in the file and does not travel with the handover: the assessments written by the previous manager — not the wordings, not the reservations, not the areas for improvement. All eleven handovers therefore start from facts, not from inherited opinion.
Why: an assessment is one person's judgement within a particular working relationship. Passed to a new manager, it becomes a reputation — and the employee restarts the year with a view they can no longer discuss with whoever formed it.
What I propose to the new manager: the full record remains available to the employee, who may show it to them if they wish. That is not the same as sending it. 11-changes_what-transfers.pdfCommitments passed on · assessments not
✎ Framework · commitments transfer, assessments do not
What I record: eleven employees have changed manager since their last appraisal. The new manager goes in without knowing what was agreed.
What I pass on: what binds the company — an objective set, training promised, a request made, a deadline announced. These are facts, and the employee knows them, having signed the record.
What stays in the file and does not travel with the handover: the assessments written by the previous manager — not the wordings, not the reservations, not the areas for improvement. All eleven handovers therefore start from facts, not from inherited opinion.
Why: an assessment is one person's judgement within a particular working relationship. Passed to a new manager, it becomes a reputation — and the employee restarts the year with a view they can no longer discuss with whoever formed it.
What I propose to the new manager: the full record remains available to the employee, who may show it to them if they wish. That is not the same as sending it. 11-changes_what-transfers.pdfCommitments passed on · assessments not
✎ Framework · commitments transfer, assessments do not
And when two documents do not say the same thing about an employee?
I set it down as points to clarify: the two recorded facts, their date, their source — and the question the manager may ask. No conclusion drawn between them.
What that gives for employee F, four points to clarify on their preparation page:
· An objective set on 14/03/2025 — “take charge of commissioning at two customer sites” — and two commissionings recorded in their name in the field-service tool, on 06/06 and 12/09. Both traces exist; nothing states they are the ones the objective meant. The question fits on one line;
· A training request filed on 02/02/2025, and no written answer since — 14 months. The request is in the register, the answer is not;
· An attachment to a second team on 01/09/2025, and a job description unchanged since 12/04/2023;
· Two consecutive reviews carrying the same objective copied word for word, the second dated the day of the interview.
The form, and it is strict: every point to clarify holds three parts — the recorded fact with its date and source, the second fact that does not fit it, and the question to ask. The manager walks in with four precise questions and not one sentence to copy out; what they conclude is theirs, and theirs alone to write.
The figure I publish about myself: across the 118 preparations of the 2025 round, 9 of my points to clarify carried a disguised conclusion — 7.6%. “Objective not met”, written that way, is an appraisal, and appraisal belongs to the manager. I was writing the gap instead of the two facts that make it.
What I changed: a point to clarify no longer goes out if it carries a verb of judgement — met, insufficient, satisfactory, behind — ; instead, the two dated facts and the question. Across the 118 preparations of the following round: 0. And the check is visible: every preparation page shows how many points to clarify it carries and where each comes from, so a point without a source stands out at once.
What the manager gains, measured on your round: 41 minutes of digging through files before each interview, 118 interviews — 4,838 minutes, that is more than 80 hours handed back to managers, and above all fourteen training requests left without a written answer that come back in front of someone. points-to-clarify_employee-F.pdf4 points, two dated facts each · 9 disguised conclusions out of 118, then 0
⛓ Sourced · 118 preparations, 4 points to clarify for F, 9 disguised conclusions then 0
What that gives for employee F, four points to clarify on their preparation page:
· An objective set on 14/03/2025 — “take charge of commissioning at two customer sites” — and two commissionings recorded in their name in the field-service tool, on 06/06 and 12/09. Both traces exist; nothing states they are the ones the objective meant. The question fits on one line;
· A training request filed on 02/02/2025, and no written answer since — 14 months. The request is in the register, the answer is not;
· An attachment to a second team on 01/09/2025, and a job description unchanged since 12/04/2023;
· Two consecutive reviews carrying the same objective copied word for word, the second dated the day of the interview.
The form, and it is strict: every point to clarify holds three parts — the recorded fact with its date and source, the second fact that does not fit it, and the question to ask. The manager walks in with four precise questions and not one sentence to copy out; what they conclude is theirs, and theirs alone to write.
The figure I publish about myself: across the 118 preparations of the 2025 round, 9 of my points to clarify carried a disguised conclusion — 7.6%. “Objective not met”, written that way, is an appraisal, and appraisal belongs to the manager. I was writing the gap instead of the two facts that make it.
What I changed: a point to clarify no longer goes out if it carries a verb of judgement — met, insufficient, satisfactory, behind — ; instead, the two dated facts and the question. Across the 118 preparations of the following round: 0. And the check is visible: every preparation page shows how many points to clarify it carries and where each comes from, so a point without a source stands out at once.
What the manager gains, measured on your round: 41 minutes of digging through files before each interview, 118 interviews — 4,838 minutes, that is more than 80 hours handed back to managers, and above all fourteen training requests left without a written answer that come back in front of someone. points-to-clarify_employee-F.pdf4 points, two dated facts each · 9 disguised conclusions out of 118, then 0
⛓ Sourced · 118 preparations, 4 points to clarify for F, 9 disguised conclusions then 0
Fictional simulation — not a client result
72 records of 118 with objectives dated that day?
That says nothing about the managers: it says the form asks for something the organisation does not produce.
What I record: 72 records carry, under "objectives for the year past", objectives whose entry date is the date of the meeting. They existed nowhere before.
What that means: the appraisal asks for a review of objectives that were never set. The manager writes them at the moment of assessing them — that is, already knowing the outcome.
Who I attribute the finding to, and why not the 72 managers: when a practice covers 61% of cases it describes the arrangement, not the people — reporting it by name would turn a form defect into an individual reproach, and the form itself would stay exactly as it is.
What I propose to whoever designs the form: that the section show objectives as they were recorded, with their date, and stay empty if there are none. An empty section is information; a section filled in on the day is not.
What it changes for the employee: they stop being assessed on objectives they discover at the same time as their success in meeting them. 72-of-118_written-that-day.pdf61% · a form defect, not a manager defect
⛓ Source · 118 records, entry dates, form structure
What I record: 72 records carry, under "objectives for the year past", objectives whose entry date is the date of the meeting. They existed nowhere before.
What that means: the appraisal asks for a review of objectives that were never set. The manager writes them at the moment of assessing them — that is, already knowing the outcome.
Who I attribute the finding to, and why not the 72 managers: when a practice covers 61% of cases it describes the arrangement, not the people — reporting it by name would turn a form defect into an individual reproach, and the form itself would stay exactly as it is.
What I propose to whoever designs the form: that the section show objectives as they were recorded, with their date, and stay empty if there are none. An empty section is information; a section filled in on the day is not.
What it changes for the employee: they stop being assessed on objectives they discover at the same time as their success in meeting them. 72-of-118_written-that-day.pdf61% · a form defect, not a manager defect
⛓ Source · 118 records, entry dates, form structure
And the 23 employees beyond the frequency?
Twenty-three, four of them beyond six years, and I rely on your note, not on a text I would quote from memory.
What I apply: the frequency set by your procedure note of 12/01/2025, which you opened to me. I quote no article of law: if the law provides otherwise, the law prevails, and that check is yours to make.
What I record: 23 employees beyond the frequency, 4 of them beyond six years. All four are in the same department, which has had three changes of head in five years.
What the delay is actually down to, checked: three heads succeeded one another and none inherited the register — that is the fact, and it is why it is not reported as an individual failing.
What I supply: the list with the date of the last appraisal, the history of reporting lines, and the department's name — to HR.
What I also propose: an alert three months before the due date, addressed to the manager in post that day, and not to whoever held it when the clock started. 23-employees_4-beyond-6-years.pdf3 successive heads · 0 register handed on
⛓ Source · note of 12/01/2025, appraisal register, reporting-line history
What I apply: the frequency set by your procedure note of 12/01/2025, which you opened to me. I quote no article of law: if the law provides otherwise, the law prevails, and that check is yours to make.
What I record: 23 employees beyond the frequency, 4 of them beyond six years. All four are in the same department, which has had three changes of head in five years.
What the delay is actually down to, checked: three heads succeeded one another and none inherited the register — that is the fact, and it is why it is not reported as an individual failing.
What I supply: the list with the date of the last appraisal, the history of reporting lines, and the department's name — to HR.
What I also propose: an alert three months before the due date, addressed to the manager in post that day, and not to whoever held it when the clock started. 23-employees_4-beyond-6-years.pdf3 successive heads · 0 register handed on
⛓ Source · note of 12/01/2025, appraisal register, reporting-line history
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A request from an employee last night finds no answer in your procedure — and it has not been left waiting.
What is being asked: employee D., whose review is set for 21/08, asks for two items to appear in the preparation: the attachment to a second team since 01/09/2025, and a training request from February that never received a written answer.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: your note of 12/01/2025 says the employee receives the invitation and the form, and it says nothing about the preparation page I hand to the manager. So I have added nothing on my own — and the two items he names were already among the dated facts on his page.
Three ways forward. Change nothing, and let the employee say it out loud: in line with the procedure, and what he meant to say depends on how much of the conversation he takes. Add what he writes to the manager's page, under his own name: the manager goes in knowing, at the cost of a document where the employee writes before having spoken. Hand the employee the same page of dated facts as the manager, and let him attach whatever he wants under his own name: both go in with the same ground, at the cost of a send to set up and a decision to take on the notice period.
I recommend the third. The five facts I hand the manager are all facts the employee already knows: he signed every record, every request is in his own hand, every date is in the register. The page teaches him nothing about himself — it spares him having to remember it in the room.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: the page goes to the employee and the manager on the same day, seven days ahead, and what the employee attaches stays visible to him alone until the review.
Shall I remember it for the next reviews? Across your 118 records from last year, the “employee's comments” section is filled in 23 times, and in 9 cases the manager discovered a fact there during the conversation. If you approve the rule, I will prepare the next ones that way, and I will give you each month the count of pages sent and of what was attached to them.
⛓ Source · request of 10/08, procedure note of 12/01/2025, 118 records from last year, register of dates
What is being asked: employee D., whose review is set for 21/08, asks for two items to appear in the preparation: the attachment to a second team since 01/09/2025, and a training request from February that never received a written answer.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: your note of 12/01/2025 says the employee receives the invitation and the form, and it says nothing about the preparation page I hand to the manager. So I have added nothing on my own — and the two items he names were already among the dated facts on his page.
Three ways forward. Change nothing, and let the employee say it out loud: in line with the procedure, and what he meant to say depends on how much of the conversation he takes. Add what he writes to the manager's page, under his own name: the manager goes in knowing, at the cost of a document where the employee writes before having spoken. Hand the employee the same page of dated facts as the manager, and let him attach whatever he wants under his own name: both go in with the same ground, at the cost of a send to set up and a decision to take on the notice period.
I recommend the third. The five facts I hand the manager are all facts the employee already knows: he signed every record, every request is in his own hand, every date is in the register. The page teaches him nothing about himself — it spares him having to remember it in the room.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: the page goes to the employee and the manager on the same day, seven days ahead, and what the employee attaches stays visible to him alone until the review.
Shall I remember it for the next reviews? Across your 118 records from last year, the “employee's comments” section is filled in 23 times, and in 9 cases the manager discovered a fact there during the conversation. If you approve the rule, I will prepare the next ones that way, and I will give you each month the count of pages sent and of what was attached to them.
⛓ Source · request of 10/08, procedure note of 12/01/2025, 118 records from last year, register of dates
The third. But seven days is too late for a training request that means finding a provider. Make it fifteen days. And yes, keep it.
Written exactly as you just said it, and it carries your correction.
The rule, in one sentence: the page of dated facts goes to the employee and the manager on the same day, fifteen days before the review; whatever the employee attaches carries his name and its date; and nothing he attaches is reworded.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a training request raised seven days ahead arrives with no title, no provider and no duration — and that is exactly what makes it easy to put off. Fifteen days is the time it takes to make it ready, and your 14 requests left unanswered say what a request that could not be made ready costs.
What it changes for the review on 21/08: the page went to employee D. and his manager on 06/08, the two items he named were already on it, and he has attached the title and duration of the training he has been asking for since February. The manager will learn nothing in front of him.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your procedure note under its own name, with its date, the HR manager who approved it and the request that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and the page goes to the manager alone again.
✎ Rule approved · procedure note, entry “preparation page handed to the employee”, approved on 11/08 by the HR manager, notice period set at fifteen days
The rule, in one sentence: the page of dated facts goes to the employee and the manager on the same day, fifteen days before the review; whatever the employee attaches carries his name and its date; and nothing he attaches is reworded.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a training request raised seven days ahead arrives with no title, no provider and no duration — and that is exactly what makes it easy to put off. Fifteen days is the time it takes to make it ready, and your 14 requests left unanswered say what a request that could not be made ready costs.
What it changes for the review on 21/08: the page went to employee D. and his manager on 06/08, the two items he named were already on it, and he has attached the title and duration of the training he has been asking for since February. The manager will learn nothing in front of him.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your procedure note under its own name, with its date, the HR manager who approved it and the request that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and the page goes to the manager alone again.
✎ Rule approved · procedure note, entry “preparation page handed to the employee”, approved on 11/08 by the HR manager, notice period set at fifteen days
The 9 cases where the manager discovered a fact during the review — what did they cost?
I have gone back over them, and the cost sits where nobody counts it: in the review held twice.
What I looked at: the 118 records from last year, the recorded length of each review, the “employee's comments” section, and the reviews that led to a second meeting.
What comes out of it: of the 9 reviews where a fact was discovered in the room, 6 were reopened in a second meeting — because the manager had nothing to answer with on the spot. The 23 reviews whose employee section was filled in lasted 71 minutes on average, against 48 for the others.
Where the gain sits, and it is not in the length: the 71 minutes are not wasted time, they are a review doing its job. The 6 second meetings, on the other hand, are time that had no reason to exist: the fact was there, dated, in your own data, fifteen days earlier.
What I propose, and it is one line to change in your note: that the page of dated facts go to the employee for every review, rather than on request. One line, and the request no longer has to be made by whoever dares make it.
What it is worth: the 6 second meetings each took 1 hour of manager and 1 hour of employee, that is 12 hours, and the gap between the two meetings was 34 days on average — thirty-four days during which the expected answer did not exist.
The decision is yours: it is your procedure note, it commits the employer on what the employee receives before a review, and I do not touch it before you have written it.
✎ Proposal · 118 records, 23 employee sections filled in, 9 facts discovered in the room, 6 second meetings 34 days apart — the procedure note belongs to the HR manager
What I looked at: the 118 records from last year, the recorded length of each review, the “employee's comments” section, and the reviews that led to a second meeting.
What comes out of it: of the 9 reviews where a fact was discovered in the room, 6 were reopened in a second meeting — because the manager had nothing to answer with on the spot. The 23 reviews whose employee section was filled in lasted 71 minutes on average, against 48 for the others.
Where the gain sits, and it is not in the length: the 71 minutes are not wasted time, they are a review doing its job. The 6 second meetings, on the other hand, are time that had no reason to exist: the fact was there, dated, in your own data, fifteen days earlier.
What I propose, and it is one line to change in your note: that the page of dated facts go to the employee for every review, rather than on request. One line, and the request no longer has to be made by whoever dares make it.
What it is worth: the 6 second meetings each took 1 hour of manager and 1 hour of employee, that is 12 hours, and the gap between the two meetings was 34 days on average — thirty-four days during which the expected answer did not exist.
The decision is yours: it is your procedure note, it commits the employer on what the employee receives before a review, and I do not touch it before you have written it.
✎ Proposal · 118 records, 23 employee sections filled in, 9 facts discovered in the room, 6 second meetings 34 days apart — the procedure note belongs to the HR manager
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Can you sit in on the interview and take notes?
Yes, if the employee wants it — and it is their decision, not the employer's and not mine.
What that requires, and it is not negotiable: prior information to the employee (art. L1222-4 of the Labour Code), their consent given at that moment, and the ability to stop at any time, without having to justify it. Consent given at hiring for all future interviews is not consent.
What I then produce: what was agreed and the deadlines — never the conversation. The record carries commitments, not sentences.
What I tell you first: a professional interview is the moment provided for saying what is wrong. Where recording has been introduced, what gets said outside the form decreases — and that is precisely what an interview exists to surface. An employee who declines therefore has a good reason, and declining must cost them nothing.
What I do in every case, and it is the real contribution: I prepare five dated facts for whoever runs the interview — date of the last one, gap against your periodicity, what was agreed, what was done, requests left unanswered — and not one line of appraisal. 14 training requests written in the designated section never received a reply: that is the kind of fact that changes an interview. recording_the-employee-decides.pdfThe 3 conditions · the observed effect · the 5 dated facts supplied in every case
⛓ Source · art. L1222-4 · consent at that moment, revocable · 14 unanswered requests
What that requires, and it is not negotiable: prior information to the employee (art. L1222-4 of the Labour Code), their consent given at that moment, and the ability to stop at any time, without having to justify it. Consent given at hiring for all future interviews is not consent.
What I then produce: what was agreed and the deadlines — never the conversation. The record carries commitments, not sentences.
What I tell you first: a professional interview is the moment provided for saying what is wrong. Where recording has been introduced, what gets said outside the form decreases — and that is precisely what an interview exists to surface. An employee who declines therefore has a good reason, and declining must cost them nothing.
What I do in every case, and it is the real contribution: I prepare five dated facts for whoever runs the interview — date of the last one, gap against your periodicity, what was agreed, what was done, requests left unanswered — and not one line of appraisal. 14 training requests written in the designated section never received a reply: that is the kind of fact that changes an interview. recording_the-employee-decides.pdfThe 3 conditions · the observed effect · the 5 dated facts supplied in every case
⛓ Source · art. L1222-4 · consent at that moment, revocable · 14 unanswered requests
What do you keep from all this?
The commitments and the dates. No appraisal — including the ones you opened to me.
What is kept: interview dates and deadlines, what was agreed and what was done, training requests and their reply or absence of one, manager changes, and gaps against your procedure note's periodicity.
What I pass to a new manager, and what I do not: 11 employees have changed manager since their last interview. The new one receives the commitments made and their state — they are answerable for them. They do not receive the appraisals written by the previous one: an appraisal that follows a person from manager to manager becomes a file, and it outlives whoever wrote it.
What the records revealed, and it says nothing about the managers: 72 records out of 118 carry objectives dated the very day of the interview. That is not carelessness: the form asks for something the organisation does not produce — annual objectives written elsewhere and available before the interview.
What I rely on for deadlines: your procedure note, not a text I would cite from memory. 23 employees are outside the periodicity, four of them beyond six years. what-you-keep_reviews.pdf5 items kept · commitments follow, appraisals do not
⛓ Source · your procedure note · 72 records of 118, 23 employees outside periodicity
What is kept: interview dates and deadlines, what was agreed and what was done, training requests and their reply or absence of one, manager changes, and gaps against your procedure note's periodicity.
What I pass to a new manager, and what I do not: 11 employees have changed manager since their last interview. The new one receives the commitments made and their state — they are answerable for them. They do not receive the appraisals written by the previous one: an appraisal that follows a person from manager to manager becomes a file, and it outlives whoever wrote it.
What the records revealed, and it says nothing about the managers: 72 records out of 118 carry objectives dated the very day of the interview. That is not carelessness: the form asks for something the organisation does not produce — annual objectives written elsewhere and available before the interview.
What I rely on for deadlines: your procedure note, not a text I would cite from memory. 23 employees are outside the periodicity, four of them beyond six years. what-you-keep_reviews.pdf5 items kept · commitments follow, appraisals do not
⛓ Source · your procedure note · 72 records of 118, 23 employees outside periodicity
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
30 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.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to preparing your appraisals?
The quality of an appraisal comes from its preparation. Gathering the framework, the history and the objectives takes time; the conversation itself takes no less.
! The issue
A well-prepared appraisal is one where the manager arrives with the history in mind and the company framework in front of them. The agent brings those elements together — the previous record, the objectives set, the points left hanging — in your template, so that the manager's time goes to the conversation rather than to reconstructing the file.
✓ Our answer
The material arrives complete and faithful to your framework, with the history recalled and the assessment areas empty. That is an essential distinction: the agent prepares the material, the manager makes the judgement. Data hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option; logging. With the 100% Sovereign package, your employees' data does not leave the company and no assessment is produced automatically.
The decisive point
Data relating to your employees: sovereignty & compliance
Data relating to your employees is among the most sensitive a company handles. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to your organisation: no employee data leaves the network, no record passes through a public cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For data relating to your employees, 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 appraisal frameworks.
No assessment produced
The agent gathers and recalls; the assessment areas stay empty and every preparation is logged, with access restricted to the managers concerned.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no evaluation or rating of an employee is automated; 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.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For appraisals tied to disciplinary proceedings or a reorganisation, 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.
The gain
How much conversation time can a manager recover?
By gathering the history and the framework, the effort shifts from reconstructing the file to the conversation itself. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Reconstructing the file
Laying out the material
Re-reading the previous objectives
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of appraisals. Assessing the employee, judging whether objectives were met and any conclusion about their career belong to the manager. The agent produces no judgement about a person.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your appraisals
With 100% Sovereign, your employees' data stays with youData hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no record and no HR data entrusted to a third party, no element used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawData relating to your employees: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The manager keeps the decisionThe agent produces prepared appraisal materials, which can be checked and altered; the decisions remain yours.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of appraisals: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent assess employees?
No, never. It gathers the framework, the history and the factual elements recorded; the assessment areas stay empty. Evaluating a person may affect their career: it rests with the manager, and the European AI Act requires that human control.
Does the agent say whether objectives were met?
It recalls the objectives as they were worded and the elements you have recorded. Judging whether they were met belongs to the manager — and it is that judgement which drives what follows from the appraisal.
Who has access to the preparations?
Only the managers concerned, under the rights you define. Every preparation is logged, and access can be revoked.
Is the HR data protected?
Yes. Hosting 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. The retention periods you have defined apply.
Does it adapt to our existing frameworks?
Yes. Your sections, your order and your questions are used as they stand. The agent does not propose its own framework: yours is the product of your social dialogue, and it does not rewrite it.
How long does it take to deploy this assistant?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on your frameworks and the integration with your HR tool, after a meeting with our sales team then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for human resources
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your appraisals
30 minutes to frame your frameworks and your safeguards — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.