We build Agents. You build the Future.
● B2B offer — Finance & collectionUnpaid invoice chaser: your templates, your sequence
Chasing an unpaid invoice takes steadiness and tact: too early and you offend, too late and you lose. Your agent tracks the due dates, spots the invoices to chase and prepares the letter at the right stage of the sequence, in your tone. Hosted in France — local inference or an isolated resource — your customers' financial position stays confidential. Nothing goes out without your approval, or without a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up you withdraw in one move: a misplaced chaser costs a customer.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Chasing unpaid invoices · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Which invoices need chasing this week?
Overdue invoices picked up under your settings, sorted by the stage reached in your sequence.
For each: the corresponding template is pre-filled with the invoice reference, the amount and the due date.
Two files have an open dispute: I have kept them out of the chasing sequence.
✎ Action · letters prepared — nothing goes out without approval or a written mandate
For each: the corresponding template is pre-filled with the invoice reference, the amount and the due date.
Two files have an open dispute: I have kept them out of the chasing sequence.
✎ Action · letters prepared — nothing goes out without approval or a written mandate
Why did you set those two aside?
A credit note is in progress on the first, and the second is subject to an unresolved complaint.
Chasing in those circumstances would be counter-productive: I flag them to you rather than handling them like the rest.
✎ Support · exceptions flagged, human decision
Chasing in those circumstances would be counter-productive: I flag them to you rather than handling them like the rest.
✎ Support · exceptions flagged, human decision
Reminder 2 sent under mandate to SARL Moreau (invoice F-2027-118, D+21). Reply received: dispute of the amount → claim left the mandate, file passed to the manager.
✎ Action · sent under mandate, logged
✎ Action · sent under mandate, logged
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Financial data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Customer position kept confidential
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The collections 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 chasing agent tracks the overdue invoices, places each file in your chasing sequence and prepares the corresponding letter from your templates. It sets aside the files under dispute or subject to a credit note rather than handling them mechanically. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your customers' financial position is entrusted to no one, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Live within a few weeks,.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
3
collection 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 volume of invoices and the length of your sequence 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
A chasing assistant (templates, sequences, due-date tracking), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
2,315 € excl. VAT setup
then 259 € 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
384 € 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
4,140 € excl. VAT setup
then 354 € 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 moments in tracking receivables, with links to neighbouring agents. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 259 € excl. VAT / month
Deadline tracking
Picks up the invoices whose due date has passed, under your tolerance rules.
Chasing letters
Prepares the letter at the stage reached in your sequence, in your usual tone.
Setting aside sensitive files
Flags disputes, credit notes in progress and open complaints instead of chasing them.
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
Reconcile supporting documents, rules and accounting entries with an audit trail
Handle discrepancies and validations before any accounting entry or payment
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 accounting and banking software and with approved platforms (French e-invoicing)
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.
Accounting
For reconciliation and accounting follow-up upstream, a dedicated agent takes it on.
Accounting agent (summaries, anomalies) from 406 € excl. VAT / month Accounting →CRM follow-up
To record the history of the customer relationship, a dedicated CRM agent completes the chain.
Sales agent (meeting notes, follow-ups, CRM) from 307 € excl. VAT / month CRM →
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.
Chasing unpaid invoices · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Four settings within reach this morning on your email chasers — each one fixable, and I tell you what each one returns.
· Three chasers went out after the customer had replied, their reply having landed in a mailbox other than the one that triggers the stop. Stopping on all your addresses is an hour's work, and their request, I have handled.
· 41% of your chasers over the last three months were not opened, all sent from an unauthenticated sending address. Authenticated, it drops to 12%: four chasers in ten that finally reach a reader.
· One address has been bouncing since February — 7 sends, 7 bounces, and the invoice stays at "chased" status. A "contact to be found" status and that invoice becomes reachable again.
· One customer received 6 chasers in 11 days on three invoices, from three sequences unaware of each other. One cadence per customer, and that is one message instead of six, with no invoice chased any less often. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 6 chasers in 11 days
⛓ Source · send log, open rates, bounces, live sequences
· Three chasers went out after the customer had replied, their reply having landed in a mailbox other than the one that triggers the stop. Stopping on all your addresses is an hour's work, and their request, I have handled.
· 41% of your chasers over the last three months were not opened, all sent from an unauthenticated sending address. Authenticated, it drops to 12%: four chasers in ten that finally reach a reader.
· One address has been bouncing since February — 7 sends, 7 bounces, and the invoice stays at "chased" status. A "contact to be found" status and that invoice becomes reachable again.
· One customer received 6 chasers in 11 days on three invoices, from three sequences unaware of each other. One cadence per customer, and that is one message instead of six, with no invoice chased any less often. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 6 chasers in 11 days
⛓ Source · send log, open rates, bounces, live sequences
Three chasers sent after a reply — how is that possible?
Because the reply arrived at a different address from the one that triggers the stop.
What happened: the chaser goes from accounts@; the customer replied to contact@, the address printed on the invoice. The sequence saw nothing and carried on.
What the customer received: they write on 14/07 to say the invoice carries the wrong delivery address. They receive a chaser on the 18th, one on the 25th, one on 02/08. Three messages telling them nobody read them.
Where it stands: the invoice has been waiting for 74 days, and the problem they reported has been waiting with it. Both are settled together, and it is the same move.
What I propose: stopping the sequence on any reply arriving at any of the company's mailboxes, not on the sending address alone. That is a setting, not an instruction.
What I did with their reply, rather than write back: their point is a billing error — they expect it corrected, not answered. So I matched the invoice against the delivery note, isolated the wrong address and prepared the credit note and the corrected invoice, both quantified and dated. Issuing the credit note is signed; it takes thirty seconds, and an invoice unpaid for 74 days becomes payable again. 3-chasers_after-a-reply.pdf1 reply recovered · 74 days · credit note and reissue ready
⛓ Source · customer reply of 14/07, send log, company mailboxes
What happened: the chaser goes from accounts@; the customer replied to contact@, the address printed on the invoice. The sequence saw nothing and carried on.
What the customer received: they write on 14/07 to say the invoice carries the wrong delivery address. They receive a chaser on the 18th, one on the 25th, one on 02/08. Three messages telling them nobody read them.
Where it stands: the invoice has been waiting for 74 days, and the problem they reported has been waiting with it. Both are settled together, and it is the same move.
What I propose: stopping the sequence on any reply arriving at any of the company's mailboxes, not on the sending address alone. That is a setting, not an instruction.
What I did with their reply, rather than write back: their point is a billing error — they expect it corrected, not answered. So I matched the invoice against the delivery note, isolated the wrong address and prepared the credit note and the corrected invoice, both quantified and dated. Issuing the credit note is signed; it takes thirty seconds, and an invoice unpaid for 74 days becomes payable again. 3-chasers_after-a-reply.pdf1 reply recovered · 74 days · credit note and reissue ready
⛓ Source · customer reply of 14/07, send log, company mailboxes
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: the send log, opens, bounces, replies arriving in your mailboxes, and live sequences.
Routing follows what can be fixed quickly: a sequence that carried on after a reply goes to the account owner, immediately — it is the only case where a customer has already been damaged; a deliverability problem to IT, with the number of emails concerned; a bouncing address to the salesperson, because they have the right contact; an over-chased customer to the account owner, before the next send.
With a chase: 4 h on a sequence wrongly continuing, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by cadence and by cause of send failure, never by customer.
What this morning has already earned you: an invoice unpaid for 74 days whose cause is finally known — a customer reply that arrived at contact@ while the sequence went out from comptabilite@ — 41% of your chasers never opened, for want of an authenticated sending address, and 7 sends for 7 bounces on an invoice still marked "chased" since February. From tomorrow: deliverability repaired means four chasers in ten finally landing in front of a reader; a sequence stop on any reply, whichever mailbox it reaches, means a customer chased six times in eleven days no longer is; and a reported billing error gets fixed instead of chased. The access is yours: send log, opens, bounces, replies and live sequences opened by role, logged, withdrawn with a word; your customers' financial position does not leave your walls. Sending is not a prohibition, it is a mandate — written, limited to the templates you have approved, capped by amount and by sequence step, dated, withdrawn with a word: one approval given once for a written perimeter, instead of a hundred approvals one at a time — and any customer reply stops everything, immediately. What the net catches, and how often it tightens: a sequence wrongly continuing comes up within 4 h, a bouncing address gets no eighth send, an over-chased customer is seen before the next dispatch. The next step is ready: the sequence-stop setting across all your addresses, and sender authentication; the first takes an hour, the second depends on your IT — tell me who to approach. amicable-follow-up-mandate_extract.pdf2 reminders · one-move withdrawal · log
✎ Framework · under a written sending mandate, or approval at each cycle
Routing follows what can be fixed quickly: a sequence that carried on after a reply goes to the account owner, immediately — it is the only case where a customer has already been damaged; a deliverability problem to IT, with the number of emails concerned; a bouncing address to the salesperson, because they have the right contact; an over-chased customer to the account owner, before the next send.
With a chase: 4 h on a sequence wrongly continuing, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by cadence and by cause of send failure, never by customer.
What this morning has already earned you: an invoice unpaid for 74 days whose cause is finally known — a customer reply that arrived at contact@ while the sequence went out from comptabilite@ — 41% of your chasers never opened, for want of an authenticated sending address, and 7 sends for 7 bounces on an invoice still marked "chased" since February. From tomorrow: deliverability repaired means four chasers in ten finally landing in front of a reader; a sequence stop on any reply, whichever mailbox it reaches, means a customer chased six times in eleven days no longer is; and a reported billing error gets fixed instead of chased. The access is yours: send log, opens, bounces, replies and live sequences opened by role, logged, withdrawn with a word; your customers' financial position does not leave your walls. Sending is not a prohibition, it is a mandate — written, limited to the templates you have approved, capped by amount and by sequence step, dated, withdrawn with a word: one approval given once for a written perimeter, instead of a hundred approvals one at a time — and any customer reply stops everything, immediately. What the net catches, and how often it tightens: a sequence wrongly continuing comes up within 4 h, a bouncing address gets no eighth send, an over-chased customer is seen before the next dispatch. The next step is ready: the sequence-stop setting across all your addresses, and sender authentication; the first takes an hour, the second depends on your IT — tell me who to approach. amicable-follow-up-mandate_extract.pdf2 reminders · one-move withdrawal · log
✎ Framework · under a written sending mandate, or approval at each cycle
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The customer who got 6 chasers in 11 days — is that a bug?
No: three correct sequences unaware of each other — and that is good news, because it is fixed by a setting and not by a rebuild.
What happened: three unpaid invoices, three sequences started on three dates. Each respects the cadence: D+7, D+14, D+21. Added together they give 6 messages in 11 days, two of them on the same day.
What the customer receives: not three reminders on three invoices. Six emails from a company chasing them every other day. That is how a cash-flow delay becomes a dispute of principle.
What I propose: a cadence per customer, not per invoice. One message summarising all three invoices, and a single counter. The cadence becomes legible to them and sustainable for you.
What that changes in volume: over three months, your 412 chasers sent would become 287 — and no invoice would be chased less often.
What I have costed so the cadence can be chosen: across your last three months, D+7 gets paid in 19 days on average and produces 412 sends; D+15 gets paid in 23 days and produces only 240. Four days of cash against 172 fewer messages landing on your customers. The cadence is signed — it is a commercial choice, it depends on your sector —, but it is decided on those two numbers, and I apply it the same day. 6-chasers_11-days.pdf412 → 287 sends · no invoice chased less
⛓ Source · 3 sequences, send log, 412 chasers over 3 months
What happened: three unpaid invoices, three sequences started on three dates. Each respects the cadence: D+7, D+14, D+21. Added together they give 6 messages in 11 days, two of them on the same day.
What the customer receives: not three reminders on three invoices. Six emails from a company chasing them every other day. That is how a cash-flow delay becomes a dispute of principle.
What I propose: a cadence per customer, not per invoice. One message summarising all three invoices, and a single counter. The cadence becomes legible to them and sustainable for you.
What that changes in volume: over three months, your 412 chasers sent would become 287 — and no invoice would be chased less often.
What I have costed so the cadence can be chosen: across your last three months, D+7 gets paid in 19 days on average and produces 412 sends; D+15 gets paid in 23 days and produces only 240. Four days of cash against 172 fewer messages landing on your customers. The cadence is signed — it is a commercial choice, it depends on your sector —, but it is decided on those two numbers, and I apply it the same day. 6-chasers_11-days.pdf412 → 287 sends · no invoice chased less
⛓ Source · 3 sequences, send log, 412 chasers over 3 months
And the content of the chasers — do you write it?
I assemble it from what you have approved: every sentence that goes out is a sentence you have read.
What you approve once: three templates — first reminder, second reminder, final reminder — each with its variables: number, date, amount, due date, contact.
What I add to them: nothing. The variables are filled from the invoice, and the text does not move.
Why the tone stays the one you approved: a template that hardens on its own when a customer is late produces messages nobody has reread, and the day it hardens on the wrong customer — the one whose invoice was in dispute — you have nothing to answer with. An approved text, by contrast, holds up at any moment, and that is what makes chasing sustainable.
What I do instead: I flag when the template plainly does not fit. Across the quarter's 412 chasers, 19 went to customers with an open dispute, and the template does not mention it.
What I propose: a fourth template, "invoice in dispute", which you write and you approve. 3-templates_19-dispute-cases.pdf19 chasers on disputed invoices · 1 missing template
✎ Framework · no generated content — your approved templates only
What you approve once: three templates — first reminder, second reminder, final reminder — each with its variables: number, date, amount, due date, contact.
What I add to them: nothing. The variables are filled from the invoice, and the text does not move.
Why the tone stays the one you approved: a template that hardens on its own when a customer is late produces messages nobody has reread, and the day it hardens on the wrong customer — the one whose invoice was in dispute — you have nothing to answer with. An approved text, by contrast, holds up at any moment, and that is what makes chasing sustainable.
What I do instead: I flag when the template plainly does not fit. Across the quarter's 412 chasers, 19 went to customers with an open dispute, and the template does not mention it.
What I propose: a fourth template, "invoice in dispute", which you write and you approve. 3-templates_19-dispute-cases.pdf19 chasers on disputed invoices · 1 missing template
✎ Framework · no generated content — your approved templates only
Fictional simulation — not a client result
41% unopened — is that normal?
No, and the cause is technical — therefore fixable.
What I record: across 412 chasers, 169 were never opened. A 41% non-open rate on chasers sent to people expecting an invoice is far above what is usually seen.
What I looked at: what became of the sends. 112 of the 169 produced no signal at all — no open, no bounce, no click. That is the profile of an email filed as junk.
What I found: the sending address accounts@ is not authenticated by your domain records, whereas contact@ is. Emails sent from contact@ have a 12% non-open rate.
What I have prepared for your provider, who has only to apply it: the two records missing on accounts@, written out line by line, exactly as they already exist for contact@ at your end. Changing the domain is signed and executed at their end — a record error cuts off all the company's email, not only the chasers. In figures: 41% non-open against 12%, so roughly 120 chasers a quarter that would finally reach a reader.
What I provide: both rates, the 112 with no signal, and the difference between the two addresses. That is what is needed to put the question to your provider — and it is half a day's work at their end. 412-sends_169-unopened.pdf41% against 12% · 112 with no signal at all
⛓ Source · 412 sends, open rates by address, domain records
What I record: across 412 chasers, 169 were never opened. A 41% non-open rate on chasers sent to people expecting an invoice is far above what is usually seen.
What I looked at: what became of the sends. 112 of the 169 produced no signal at all — no open, no bounce, no click. That is the profile of an email filed as junk.
What I found: the sending address accounts@ is not authenticated by your domain records, whereas contact@ is. Emails sent from contact@ have a 12% non-open rate.
What I have prepared for your provider, who has only to apply it: the two records missing on accounts@, written out line by line, exactly as they already exist for contact@ at your end. Changing the domain is signed and executed at their end — a record error cuts off all the company's email, not only the chasers. In figures: 41% non-open against 12%, so roughly 120 chasers a quarter that would finally reach a reader.
What I provide: both rates, the 112 with no signal, and the difference between the two addresses. That is what is needed to put the question to your provider — and it is half a day's work at their end. 412-sends_169-unopened.pdf41% against 12% · 112 with no signal at all
⛓ Source · 412 sends, open rates by address, domain records
The address bouncing since February — how could that last?
Because the bounce reaches nobody today: at every send the invoice goes back to "chased" status. That is a status to correct, and it is a setting.
What I record: 7 sends between February and August, 7 hard bounces — the address no longer exists. And at every send, the invoice moves to "chased" status.
What that produces: the invoice looks followed up when nobody has ever received anything. It never resurfaces among unpaid invoices to handle, because it is always "being chased".
Across all your unpaid invoices: 14 are in that position, for €52,000, four of them having reached nobody since issue. That is €52,000 of receivables that become reachable again the moment the address is corrected — and I have already found nine of them.
What I propose: a hard bounce moves the invoice to "contact to be found", not to "chased". And the salesperson is told — they almost always have the right contact, and nobody has asked them.
Where I go looking for the right contact, and why I hold that line: in your own exchanges — the signed quotation, the purchase order, the salesperson's emails —, and there I found a valid address for 9 of the 14 invoices. An address picked up somewhere online, no: writing to an address found at random, about an unpaid invoice, means sending financial information to somebody you know nothing about. For the remaining 5, the question to the salesperson is already written — one line to send, and the last five addresses come in. 14-invoices_dead-address.pdf€52,000 · 4 with no message ever received
⛓ Source · 7 bounces, invoice statuses, 14 comparable invoices
What I record: 7 sends between February and August, 7 hard bounces — the address no longer exists. And at every send, the invoice moves to "chased" status.
What that produces: the invoice looks followed up when nobody has ever received anything. It never resurfaces among unpaid invoices to handle, because it is always "being chased".
Across all your unpaid invoices: 14 are in that position, for €52,000, four of them having reached nobody since issue. That is €52,000 of receivables that become reachable again the moment the address is corrected — and I have already found nine of them.
What I propose: a hard bounce moves the invoice to "contact to be found", not to "chased". And the salesperson is told — they almost always have the right contact, and nobody has asked them.
Where I go looking for the right contact, and why I hold that line: in your own exchanges — the signed quotation, the purchase order, the salesperson's emails —, and there I found a valid address for 9 of the 14 invoices. An address picked up somewhere online, no: writing to an address found at random, about an unpaid invoice, means sending financial information to somebody you know nothing about. For the remaining 5, the question to the salesperson is already written — one line to send, and the last five addresses come in. 14-invoices_dead-address.pdf€52,000 · 4 with no message ever received
⛓ Source · 7 bounces, invoice statuses, 14 comparable invoices
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What stops a sequence, exactly?
Five things, and they are checked before every send, not at launch.
· A reply from the customer, at any company mailbox. That is the main trigger, and it is the one missing this morning.
· A payment, even partial. A customer who pays half has acted; chasing them as if they had done nothing cancels the gesture.
· The opening of a dispute, from whatever source.
· A hard bounce. Continuing to write to a dead address fills a log and nothing else.
· A credit note issued to the customer, even unrelated to the invoice being chased.
What I check in addition, just before sending: that no other sequence has written to this customer within 7 days, and that no salesperson has a live exchange with them — that last point is what prevents the message landing mid-negotiation.
What I prepare for a restart, and what triggers it: a stopped sequence stays stopped until a person restarts it, because it stopped on an event somebody must have handled. So I hand the whole file to whoever owns the account: the stopping event, its date, what has been done since, and the restart message already drafted at the right step of the sequence. One word from you and it resumes at the next step, not at the first. 5-stop-triggers.pdf5 stops · 2 checks before every send
✎ Framework · 5 stop triggers · checked before every send
· A reply from the customer, at any company mailbox. That is the main trigger, and it is the one missing this morning.
· A payment, even partial. A customer who pays half has acted; chasing them as if they had done nothing cancels the gesture.
· The opening of a dispute, from whatever source.
· A hard bounce. Continuing to write to a dead address fills a log and nothing else.
· A credit note issued to the customer, even unrelated to the invoice being chased.
What I check in addition, just before sending: that no other sequence has written to this customer within 7 days, and that no salesperson has a live exchange with them — that last point is what prevents the message landing mid-negotiation.
What I prepare for a restart, and what triggers it: a stopped sequence stays stopped until a person restarts it, because it stopped on an event somebody must have handled. So I hand the whole file to whoever owns the account: the stopping event, its date, what has been done since, and the restart message already drafted at the right step of the sequence. One word from you and it resumes at the next step, not at the first. 5-stop-triggers.pdf5 stops · 2 checks before every send
✎ Framework · 5 stop triggers · checked before every send
What do you keep out of all this?
What happened on the channel, and nothing describing a customer.
What is kept: the message sent, the sending address and the template used, the date, what became of the send — opened, bounced, no signal —, the reply received, and the event that stopped the sequence.
What never accumulates, and it is a design choice that protects the relationship: no responsiveness score per customer, no payment-behaviour history intended to harden the tone, no open-rate profile — knowing a customer opens their email at 7 a.m. serves nothing anyone should want to do here.
Why "no responsiveness score": it would serve to decide who to chase harder. And the customer who does not reply is often the one whose address bounces — the penalty would fall on a technical fact.
What the monthly summary contains: open rates by sending address, causes of send failure, sequences stopped and by what, and the number of messages per customer. Four indicators about the channel. what-is-kept.pdf6 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
What is kept: the message sent, the sending address and the template used, the date, what became of the send — opened, bounced, no signal —, the reply received, and the event that stopped the sequence.
What never accumulates, and it is a design choice that protects the relationship: no responsiveness score per customer, no payment-behaviour history intended to harden the tone, no open-rate profile — knowing a customer opens their email at 7 a.m. serves nothing anyone should want to do here.
Why "no responsiveness score": it would serve to decide who to chase harder. And the customer who does not reply is often the one whose address bounces — the penalty would fall on a technical fact.
What the monthly summary contains: open rates by sending address, causes of send failure, sequences stopped and by what, and the number of messages per customer. Four indicators about the channel. what-is-kept.pdf6 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
Before the sequence even starts: how do you know which invoice to chase?
Through the overnight due-date review, and through setting sensitive files aside in the morning.
Due-date tracking: every night I pick up the invoices past their due date, according to your tolerance rules rather than a general one — 5 working days for a client under a framework agreement, no grace for a one-off sale, 15 days for the 6 public-sector clients whose payment authorisation delay you know. This morning, 184 invoices are past due for €412,000; after your tolerances, 131 enter a sequence, and the other 53 will resurface on their own date with nobody having to remember them.
Setting sensitive files aside: of those 131, 17 drop out before anything is sent — 9 carry an open complaint, 5 are waiting on a credit note agreed and not yet issued, 3 are in a documented commercial dispute. They are not chased: they are flagged to you with the reason, the date the sensitive file was opened and the person following it on your side. Chasing a client who is waiting on a credit note from you is the most expensive chase there is.
What that gives back: reviewing due dates and sorting out sensitive files took 6 hours a week from your accounts receivable team; it now takes 40 minutes of checking. Over 47 working weeks, more than 250 hours given back — more than seven 35-hour weeks, rounded down.
The figure I publish about myself: of my first 90 exclusions, 4 sensitive files slipped past me — 4.4 % — and those four clients received a chaser after they had written in. All four complaints had come in by telephone and were noted in a free-text CRM field I was not reading. I read it now, and I treat any mention of a dispute, a credit note or a complaint less than 60 days old as grounds to set the file aside, even at the risk of setting one aside wrongly: over the next 240, no misses, and 7 exclusions your accountants lifted in one click.
⛓ Sourced · 184 overdue invoices for €412,000, 17 sensitive files set aside, 4 misses fixed
Due-date tracking: every night I pick up the invoices past their due date, according to your tolerance rules rather than a general one — 5 working days for a client under a framework agreement, no grace for a one-off sale, 15 days for the 6 public-sector clients whose payment authorisation delay you know. This morning, 184 invoices are past due for €412,000; after your tolerances, 131 enter a sequence, and the other 53 will resurface on their own date with nobody having to remember them.
Setting sensitive files aside: of those 131, 17 drop out before anything is sent — 9 carry an open complaint, 5 are waiting on a credit note agreed and not yet issued, 3 are in a documented commercial dispute. They are not chased: they are flagged to you with the reason, the date the sensitive file was opened and the person following it on your side. Chasing a client who is waiting on a credit note from you is the most expensive chase there is.
What that gives back: reviewing due dates and sorting out sensitive files took 6 hours a week from your accounts receivable team; it now takes 40 minutes of checking. Over 47 working weeks, more than 250 hours given back — more than seven 35-hour weeks, rounded down.
The figure I publish about myself: of my first 90 exclusions, 4 sensitive files slipped past me — 4.4 % — and those four clients received a chaser after they had written in. All four complaints had come in by telephone and were noted in a free-text CRM field I was not reading. I read it now, and I treat any mention of a dispute, a credit note or a complaint less than 60 days old as grounds to set the file aside, even at the risk of setting one aside wrongly: over the next 240, no misses, and 7 exclusions your accountants lifted in one click.
⛓ Sourced · 184 overdue invoices for €412,000, 17 sensitive files set aside, 4 misses fixed
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A reply arrived on a running sequence, and it was written by software.
What I have in front of me: client M. received the day-7 reminder yesterday at 9:00. A reply arrived at 9:01: « I am away until 6 October. In case of urgency, contact accounts. » It is indeed a reply that arrived on one of your addresses — the first of my five stop triggers.
The point that had not yet been defined: the trigger says « a reply from the client, on any company mailbox », and it does not distinguish a reply written by a person from one written by software. I did not settle it on my own, and nothing went out: the sequence has been paused since 9:01, and both possible continuations are ready.
Three ways of doing it. Treat the absence as a reply and stop the sequence: no risk of chasing someone who has replied, but the invoice sleeps until a person reopens the file — and it will not reopen itself. Ignore all automatic replies: the cadence continues, but a genuine reply written under an automatic header would slip through. Recognise the absence, keep the sequence, postpone the next send to the stated return date, and stop the sequence if the message names a substitute contact: nothing goes out into the void, and nothing sleeps.
I recommend the third. An out-of-office message is not a disagreement, it is a calendar — and yours is written inside it. Here accounts is named: the sequence stops, and the file goes to the address given.
You can also give me another one — for instance: always postpone to the return date, and never switch to another contact without your approval.
Shall I remember it for the next ones? Across your 412 reminders, 34 automatic out-of-office replies arrived — 21 carried a return date, 9 named a substitute contact. If you approve the rule, I will handle the next ones this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count every month. automatic-out-of-office-reply_three-ways.pdf1 reply · 3 ways of doing it · 34 comparable cases
⛓ Sourced · automatic reply of the 26th at 9:01, five stop triggers, the period's 412 reminders
What I have in front of me: client M. received the day-7 reminder yesterday at 9:00. A reply arrived at 9:01: « I am away until 6 October. In case of urgency, contact accounts. » It is indeed a reply that arrived on one of your addresses — the first of my five stop triggers.
The point that had not yet been defined: the trigger says « a reply from the client, on any company mailbox », and it does not distinguish a reply written by a person from one written by software. I did not settle it on my own, and nothing went out: the sequence has been paused since 9:01, and both possible continuations are ready.
Three ways of doing it. Treat the absence as a reply and stop the sequence: no risk of chasing someone who has replied, but the invoice sleeps until a person reopens the file — and it will not reopen itself. Ignore all automatic replies: the cadence continues, but a genuine reply written under an automatic header would slip through. Recognise the absence, keep the sequence, postpone the next send to the stated return date, and stop the sequence if the message names a substitute contact: nothing goes out into the void, and nothing sleeps.
I recommend the third. An out-of-office message is not a disagreement, it is a calendar — and yours is written inside it. Here accounts is named: the sequence stops, and the file goes to the address given.
You can also give me another one — for instance: always postpone to the return date, and never switch to another contact without your approval.
Shall I remember it for the next ones? Across your 412 reminders, 34 automatic out-of-office replies arrived — 21 carried a return date, 9 named a substitute contact. If you approve the rule, I will handle the next ones this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the count every month. automatic-out-of-office-reply_three-ways.pdf1 reply · 3 ways of doing it · 34 comparable cases
⛓ Sourced · automatic reply of the 26th at 9:01, five stop triggers, the period's 412 reminders
The third one. But a switch to another contact does not go out without me: I want to approve it, like any send. The date postponement you can do on your own. And yes, keep it.
Written as you have just said it, and it carries your correction.
The rule, in one sentence: an automatic out-of-office reply pauses the sequence, it does not stop it; the next send is postponed to the stated return date, and that postponement happens on its own; when a substitute contact is named, the switch is proposed to you and waits for your approval, like any send.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: writing to someone who never received the invoice means starting the whole chase again with a person who does not know what it is about. That choice belongs to you because it commits you to a new recipient, and not merely to the same client one more time.
What it changes today: the period's 34 out-of-office replies are taken up again — 21 sequences postponed to their return date, 9 switches to accounts written and put in front of you, 4 with neither date nor contact rescheduled to day 7 after the send date. None went out without you.
What lets you go back on it: the rule is entered in your stop triggers under its name, with its date, the person who approved it and the reply that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line, and an absence becomes a hard stop again.
✎ Rule approved · stop triggers, entry « automatic out-of-office reply », approved on 27/09 — any change of recipient stays subject to your approval
The rule, in one sentence: an automatic out-of-office reply pauses the sequence, it does not stop it; the next send is postponed to the stated return date, and that postponement happens on its own; when a substitute contact is named, the switch is proposed to you and waits for your approval, like any send.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: writing to someone who never received the invoice means starting the whole chase again with a person who does not know what it is about. That choice belongs to you because it commits you to a new recipient, and not merely to the same client one more time.
What it changes today: the period's 34 out-of-office replies are taken up again — 21 sequences postponed to their return date, 9 switches to accounts written and put in front of you, 4 with neither date nor contact rescheduled to day 7 after the send date. None went out without you.
What lets you go back on it: the rule is entered in your stop triggers under its name, with its date, the person who approved it and the reply that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line, and an absence becomes a hard stop again.
✎ Rule approved · stop triggers, entry « automatic out-of-office reply », approved on 27/09 — any change of recipient stays subject to your approval
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 tracking your receivables?
Chasing means tracking every due date and knowing where each file stands. But a chaser sent without judgement damages a commercial relationship for a long time.
! The issue
An effective chaser means knowing the due date, the stage already reached in the sequence and the state of the relationship. The agent keeps those three pieces of information up to date whatever the volume, and prepares the letter at the right stage, in your tone. Files under dispute or subject to a credit note are set aside explicitly, and your receivables and your late payments stay with you rather than with a third-party service subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
Assisted chasing is only of interest if it is sovereign and cautious. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, explicit setting-aside of files under dispute, nothing sent outside your approval or your written mandate: you gain steady tracking without risking the customer relationship. It is the collections manager who decides who is chased, and when.
The decisive point
Your customers' financial position: sovereignty & compliance
Your receivables and your late payments map the health of your customer portfolio. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to your organisation: no receivables data leaves the network, no customer history 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 your customers' financial position, 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 customer portfolio.
Sending under mandate, or approval before sending
Without a mandate, every reminder waits for an authorised person. With a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up — scope, ceiling per debtor, duration, one-move withdrawal, log —, the agent sends the overdue-invoice reminders you have set, in your name, from your address and under your signature, using your templates, to businesses or private individuals as you choose. It collects nothing, replies to no debtor and never sends a formal notice: anything beyond reminders goes back to a person. Sequence and templates are applied as they stand; encryption, role-based access (RBAC) and logging of every letter prepared.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no chaser is sent outside a written sending mandate or an authorised person's approval, no formal notice is sent by the agent and no file is classed as disputed without your view; 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 portfolios containing contentious debts or customers in insolvency proceedings, 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 tracking can a team recover on its receivables?
By automating the spotting of due dates and the preparation of letters, tracking becomes steady without taking any more time. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Spotting the invoices to chase
Writing the chasing letter
Tracking the chasing stage reached
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. The agent does by itself what you authorise it to do; whatever leaves the company, and any decision reserved to a person, waits for a human go-ahead, except what is sent under an amicable follow-up mandate, which is logged.
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 collection
Your receivables stay within the companyData 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 customer financial data entrusted to a third party, no history used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour customers' financial position: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The collections manager keeps the decisionThe agent produces prepared chasing letters, which can be checked and altered; the decisions remain yours.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your volume of invoices and the length of your sequence: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent send the chasers by itself?
Never without a written frame. By default, it prepares and you send. If you give it, from your customer area, a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up, it sends the overdue-invoice reminders you have set: business or private debtors, number of reminders, spacing, days and hours, templates, duration. You withdraw that mandate in one move. Some limits cannot be set, because the law imposes them on the creditor: no cost or penalty charged to private individuals, stop at the first reply or dispute, no reminder beyond the limitation period, none to a debtor in insolvency or over-indebtedness proceedings. As soon as a debtor replies, the claim leaves the mandate and goes back to an authorised person. The agent collects nothing, replies to no debtor and never sends a formal notice; the mandate covers neither telephone calls nor text messages, which stay approved one by one by an authorised person.
Who answers for the rules of amicable collection?
You do, with your advisers. The rules that govern debt collection and consumer protection are a matter for the company and its advisers: the assistant does not promise the legal compliance of your chasers. It stays within amicable chasing: no formal demand, no penalty calculated by the agent, no enforced collection action, and no message to a debtor without an authorised person's approval, outside a written sending mandate for amicable follow-up limited to overdue-invoice reminders sent in your name and from your address. The agent applies the limits you set and those it cannot lift; it does not collect debts on behalf of others: your company follows up its own invoices.
How does the agent avoid chasing a customer in dispute?
It sets aside the files with an open dispute, a credit note in progress or an unresolved complaint, and flags them to you separately. The final classification of those cases is yours.
Does the agent adapt the tone to the chasing stage?
It applies the template corresponding to the stage reached in your sequence — first reminder, firm chaser. The templates are yours; the agent does not rewrite them and prepares no formal demand.
Is our customers' financial 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. Your receivables are not used to train a third-party model.
Does it connect to our accounts?
Yes, to the common accounting and invoicing tools, to read the due dates and the state of payments. The integration is defined at the design stage, with no migration.
How far will the agent chase the same person?
It never goes beyond the sequence you have written, and three stops are built into the configuration: a recorded payment ends the sequence, an open dispute, credit note or complaint takes the file out before the first reminder, and a request from the person not to be contacted again stops it immediately and for good. Without a sending mandate, the agent drafts the letters and you send them; under a mandate, the same stops apply and the number of reminders is the one you set. An automated reminder that repeats without limit on the same person becomes repeated pressure, and the law treats it as such (French Criminal Code, art. 222-33-2-2, aggravated where the medium is digital).
How long does it take to deploy this assistant?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on how complex your chasing sequence is and the accounting integration, after a meeting with our sales team then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Can it send a letter, or a registered letter?
As an option. E-mail is the default channel. If you wish, a reminder can go out by post or by registered letter, lodged in your name with a mailing provider chosen with you; the letter's template is yours, with no formal notice, and the first registered letter waits for your approval unless you set otherwise. Postage stays at your expense, never the debtor's.
Related use cases
Other agents for finance and administration
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your receivables
30 minutes to frame your chasing sequence — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.