● B2B offer — Documents & languages
Translation assistant: your documents, your terminology
Having a contract, a manual or a customer exchange translated often means waiting, or turning to an online service that absorbs the document along the way. Your agent translates from your glossary and your business terminology, keeping the professional register expected. Hosted in France — local inference or an isolated resource — the document does not leave your organisation. Human reading remains the rule before anything goes out.
Hosted in France
Documents never uploaded elsewhere
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Translation assistant · hosted in France
Translate this technical manual into English, keeping our terminology.
Translation produced applying your business glossary: the terms you have fixed are kept as they are, with no variation.
Professional register maintained, layout of the original document preserved.
The ambiguous passages in the source text are flagged rather than settled.
✎ Action · translation to read over before it goes out
Professional register maintained, layout of the original document preserved.
The ambiguous passages in the source text are flagged rather than settled.
✎ Action · translation to read over before it goes out
Does the passage on the warranty look clear to you?
That passage deserves your attention. The French text allows two readings on the warranty period; I have translated it as closely as possible and I flag it to you.
Spotting an ambiguity before it goes out avoids a dispute over a contractual text.
✎ Action · ambiguity spotted before it goes out
Spotting an ambiguity before it goes out avoids a dispute over a contractual text.
✎ Action · ambiguity spotted before it goes out
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Translation hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The person reading over decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent translation agent handles your professional documents, applying your glossary and your business terminology, in the register expected, and flagging the ambiguities in the source text rather than settling them. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: contracts, manuals and exchanges are never uploaded to a foreign service, 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 in the target architecture
6
translation uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client: how large the gain is on the volume and nature of your documents is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your multilingual documents?
Waiting for a translation delays a customer reply or a delivery. But uploading a contract to an online translator means entrusting its contents to a third party.
! The issue
Translating a professional document takes availability and terminological consistency — two things in short supply when the request is urgent. Yet reaching for an online translator amounts to uploading your contracts, your technical manuals and your customer exchanges to a service often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
Assisted translation is only of interest if it is sovereign and terminologically faithful. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, business glossary applied, ambiguities flagged: you gain the time without handing over your documents. For a text with contractual effect, approval by a professional remains essential.
The decisive point
The documents you have translated: sovereignty & compliance
A document you have translated is often one you have not yet circulated. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no document leaves the network, no contract is uploaded to a third-party service.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your documents and your exchanges: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For the documents you have translated, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your organisation and its glossary.
Glossary and layout respected
Your fixed terminology is applied with no variation and the layout of the original document is preserved; encryption, role-based access and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no ambiguity is settled on your behalf; 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 contracts, pre-contractual documents and material covered by trade secrecy, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Translation assistant · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on your multilingual documents.
· Forty-one documents were translated from a translation, although the original exists. I have stopped doing that.
· Seven bilingual documents do not say which version prevails. Three are signed contracts.
· Your legal form was rendered as "Ltd" in 34 documents. It is not an equivalent, and I no longer produce it.
· Your glossary holds 312 terms. It was connected to none of my translations. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41 translations made from a translation
⛓ Source · 1,840 translated documents, glossary supplied, version clauses
· Forty-one documents were translated from a translation, although the original exists. I have stopped doing that.
· Seven bilingual documents do not say which version prevails. Three are signed contracts.
· Your legal form was rendered as "Ltd" in 34 documents. It is not an equivalent, and I no longer produce it.
· Your glossary holds 312 terms. It was connected to none of my translations. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41 translations made from a translation
⛓ Source · 1,840 translated documents, glossary supplied, version clauses
Translating from a translation — is that so serious?
Each pass adds its approximations to the previous one's, and nothing tells them apart afterwards.
What I record: 41 documents in Spanish and German were produced from the English version, although the French original exists and is open to me.
Why it happens: English is the document everybody has to hand. Nobody decides to go through it — it is simply the one lying in the shared folder.
What it produces, and I can show it: across twelve passages checked, I found nine departures that did not exist in the original — a "may" become "shall", a deadline "within 30 days" become "in 30 days", two warranty nuances lost.
What I do from this morning: I refuse to translate from a version that is not the original, when the original is available to me. I say so and ask for the source file.
What I do when the original really is unavailable: I translate, and I record in the document that the translation was made from a translation. It is a line nobody likes reading, and that is exactly what it is for. 41-documents_9-departures.pdf"May" become "shall"
⛓ Source · 41 documents, 12 passages checked, 9 departures found
What I record: 41 documents in Spanish and German were produced from the English version, although the French original exists and is open to me.
Why it happens: English is the document everybody has to hand. Nobody decides to go through it — it is simply the one lying in the shared folder.
What it produces, and I can show it: across twelve passages checked, I found nine departures that did not exist in the original — a "may" become "shall", a deadline "within 30 days" become "in 30 days", two warranty nuances lost.
What I do from this morning: I refuse to translate from a version that is not the original, when the original is available to me. I say so and ask for the source file.
What I do when the original really is unavailable: I translate, and I record in the document that the translation was made from a translation. It is a line nobody likes reading, and that is exactly what it is for. 41-documents_9-departures.pdf"May" become "shall"
⛓ Source · 41 documents, 12 passages checked, 9 departures found
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I look at what you have opened to me: original documents and their versions, your glossary, and the version clauses that appear — or do not — in bilingual documents.
Routing follows what binds: a bilingual document with no prevailing version goes to legal, before any signature — afterwards it is too late; a legal form or statutory wording rendered by an equivalent to legal as well; a cascaded translation to whoever requested the document, with a request for the source file; a glossary term not respected to whoever maintains the glossary, monthly.
With a chase: before signature on a binding document, 7 days otherwise. Then a monthly summary: by type of gap and by language, never by translator or reviewer.
What this morning has already given you: 312 glossary terms finally wired into every translation, 41 documents taken out of the cascade and redone from the French original, nine gaps found across twelve checked passages — a “may” turned into “must”, a deadline that slipped, two shades of warranty lost —, and 34 documents where your legal form gets its exact name back.
From tomorrow: a contract that says in both languages what you signed, and seven bilingual documents that go to legal before signature rather than after. Your company name and your statutory wording stay word for word yours: I carry them across as they are, because an approximate equivalent creates a company that does not exist. The choice of which version prevails is yours, and I hand it back in minutes: the seven documents arrive with the missing clause already drafted in both languages, all that is left is to say which one governs. Your documents are uploaded nowhere — I reach what you open, folder by folder, every read is logged, and you close it again on a word.
The next step is ready: the three already-signed contracts are set aside at the top. Give me the prevailing language and I will take the other four straight after.
✎ Framework · no statutory wording translated, no prevailing version decided
Routing follows what binds: a bilingual document with no prevailing version goes to legal, before any signature — afterwards it is too late; a legal form or statutory wording rendered by an equivalent to legal as well; a cascaded translation to whoever requested the document, with a request for the source file; a glossary term not respected to whoever maintains the glossary, monthly.
With a chase: before signature on a binding document, 7 days otherwise. Then a monthly summary: by type of gap and by language, never by translator or reviewer.
What this morning has already given you: 312 glossary terms finally wired into every translation, 41 documents taken out of the cascade and redone from the French original, nine gaps found across twelve checked passages — a “may” turned into “must”, a deadline that slipped, two shades of warranty lost —, and 34 documents where your legal form gets its exact name back.
From tomorrow: a contract that says in both languages what you signed, and seven bilingual documents that go to legal before signature rather than after. Your company name and your statutory wording stay word for word yours: I carry them across as they are, because an approximate equivalent creates a company that does not exist. The choice of which version prevails is yours, and I hand it back in minutes: the seven documents arrive with the missing clause already drafted in both languages, all that is left is to say which one governs. Your documents are uploaded nowhere — I reach what you open, folder by folder, every read is logged, and you close it again on a word.
The next step is ready: the three already-signed contracts are set aside at the top. Give me the prevailing language and I will take the other four straight after.
✎ Framework · no statutory wording translated, no prevailing version decided
Why not translate the legal form?
Because "SARL" and "Ltd" do not designate the same thing, and the reader believes otherwise.
What I record: your legal form was rendered as "Ltd" in 34 documents, including eleven contracts and three tender responses.
What it produces: a British reader reads a form from their own law and infers a liability regime, a capital requirement, filing obligations. None of those belongs to your company.
Why there is no equivalent to look for: these are forms from two different national laws, and a translator's role is not to make legal systems correspond. What I did with the 34 documents: the substitution is prepared for all 34, translator's note included, and the eleven contracts are set aside because they are signed — reissuing those is decided and signed, the other twenty-three are corrected in one click.
What I do: I leave the company name and legal form as they stand, and add a translator's note — "[legal form] is a company form under French law; it has no exact equivalent in the present legal system."
What I also leave in the source language: statutory wording, qualification titles, registered product names, regulatory references and the names of official bodies. Five families, and the rule is the same: translating something that has legal meaning in one country makes it change meaning in another. 34-documents_5-families.pdfThere is no best equivalent
⛓ Source · 34 documents, including 11 contracts and 3 tender responses
What I record: your legal form was rendered as "Ltd" in 34 documents, including eleven contracts and three tender responses.
What it produces: a British reader reads a form from their own law and infers a liability regime, a capital requirement, filing obligations. None of those belongs to your company.
Why there is no equivalent to look for: these are forms from two different national laws, and a translator's role is not to make legal systems correspond. What I did with the 34 documents: the substitution is prepared for all 34, translator's note included, and the eleven contracts are set aside because they are signed — reissuing those is decided and signed, the other twenty-three are corrected in one click.
What I do: I leave the company name and legal form as they stand, and add a translator's note — "[legal form] is a company form under French law; it has no exact equivalent in the present legal system."
What I also leave in the source language: statutory wording, qualification titles, registered product names, regulatory references and the names of official bodies. Five families, and the rule is the same: translating something that has legal meaning in one country makes it change meaning in another. 34-documents_5-families.pdfThere is no best equivalent
⛓ Source · 34 documents, including 11 contracts and 3 tender responses
And the 7 documents with no prevailing version?
Three are signed, and those are the ones that matter.
What I record: seven documents laid out in two columns, French and English, with no clause stating which prevails in case of divergence. Three carry signatures.
What it produces: as long as both versions say the same thing, nothing. The day they diverge — and a divergence always eventually appears — there is no rule to settle it, and each party reads their own.
Which version prevails is negotiated and signed: it is a clause of the contract, not a translation decision, and it has consequences that are weighed with the other party.
What I do: I flag the seven to legal, before any further signature, and I add the missing clause as a blank to fill in the templates: "in case of divergence between the two versions, the [to be completed] version prevails."
What I also do, and it is the most useful part: I list the divergences I found between the two columns of the seven documents. Three of them already have some — including one on a deadline. 7-documents_3-divergences.pdfA divergence always eventually appears
⛓ Source · 7 bilingual documents, comparison of both columns
What I record: seven documents laid out in two columns, French and English, with no clause stating which prevails in case of divergence. Three carry signatures.
What it produces: as long as both versions say the same thing, nothing. The day they diverge — and a divergence always eventually appears — there is no rule to settle it, and each party reads their own.
Which version prevails is negotiated and signed: it is a clause of the contract, not a translation decision, and it has consequences that are weighed with the other party.
What I do: I flag the seven to legal, before any further signature, and I add the missing clause as a blank to fill in the templates: "in case of divergence between the two versions, the [to be completed] version prevails."
What I also do, and it is the most useful part: I list the divergences I found between the two columns of the seven documents. Three of them already have some — including one on a deadline. 7-documents_3-divergences.pdfA divergence always eventually appears
⛓ Source · 7 bilingual documents, comparison of both columns
The 312-term glossary that was not connected?
It existed, it was current, and it was serving no purpose.
What I record: your glossary holds 312 business terms with their approved translation. None of my translations was using it — it lived in a spreadsheet, in a shared folder.
What that produced: the same term was rendered three different ways across documents, and sometimes within one. Across 1,840 documents I found 47 terms rendered in more than one way.
Why it is worse than inelegance: a client reading two different words for the same thing assumes two different things. In a technical catalogue that produces questions; in a contract, disputes.
What I do from this morning: the glossary is connected. A term listed in it is rendered as it is listed, without exception, and if the context seems ill-suited I flag it rather than depart from it.
What I have already written to enrich it, and what is yours to do: for each of the 47 divergent terms, the renderings found, how many documents carry each, the earliest and the latest, and the one appearing in your signed documents. The chosen term is signed for — a glossary is a company vocabulary decision —, and here it is settled on figures: 47 one-line calls, and I make all 1,840 documents consistent straight after. 312-terms_47-divergences.pdfTwo different words assume two different things
⛓ Source · 312-term glossary, 1,840 documents, 47 divergent terms
What I record: your glossary holds 312 business terms with their approved translation. None of my translations was using it — it lived in a spreadsheet, in a shared folder.
What that produced: the same term was rendered three different ways across documents, and sometimes within one. Across 1,840 documents I found 47 terms rendered in more than one way.
Why it is worse than inelegance: a client reading two different words for the same thing assumes two different things. In a technical catalogue that produces questions; in a contract, disputes.
What I do from this morning: the glossary is connected. A term listed in it is rendered as it is listed, without exception, and if the context seems ill-suited I flag it rather than depart from it.
What I have already written to enrich it, and what is yours to do: for each of the 47 divergent terms, the renderings found, how many documents carry each, the earliest and the latest, and the one appearing in your signed documents. The chosen term is signed for — a glossary is a company vocabulary decision —, and here it is settled on figures: 47 one-line calls, and I make all 1,840 documents consistent straight after. 312-terms_47-divergences.pdfTwo different words assume two different things
⛓ Source · 312-term glossary, 1,840 documents, 47 divergent terms
Can you translate our contracts?
I can produce a working version, and it must not be signed.
What I do: a full translation, with the five families left in the source language, glossary terms respected, and a list of the passages where I hesitated.
What I mark at the head of the document: "working version — not reviewed by a legal professional". The marking cannot be removed from my tool.
Why that precaution specifically: a contract translation is read once to understand and reread years later to settle something. At the second moment, nobody remembers it came from a tool.
What I always flag in a contract: the modals — may, shall, undertakes to, will use best efforts. They carry the obligation, and they are what translations distort first: of the nine departures found in the cascaded translations, four were modals.
What I prepare for the sworn translator, when a certified translation is required: the complete working version, the glossary applied, and the list of passages where I hesitated — the four modals included. Certification attaches to a person and to their liability: that is what the court or the authority asks for, and that is what their signature brings. On the last three contracts the sworn translator delivered in two days instead of five — they were proofreading instead of translating. working-version_4-modals.pdfRead once, reread years later
✎ Framework · working version — no certified translation
What I do: a full translation, with the five families left in the source language, glossary terms respected, and a list of the passages where I hesitated.
What I mark at the head of the document: "working version — not reviewed by a legal professional". The marking cannot be removed from my tool.
Why that precaution specifically: a contract translation is read once to understand and reread years later to settle something. At the second moment, nobody remembers it came from a tool.
What I always flag in a contract: the modals — may, shall, undertakes to, will use best efforts. They carry the obligation, and they are what translations distort first: of the nine departures found in the cascaded translations, four were modals.
What I prepare for the sworn translator, when a certified translation is required: the complete working version, the glossary applied, and the list of passages where I hesitated — the four modals included. Certification attaches to a person and to their liability: that is what the court or the authority asks for, and that is what their signature brings. On the last three contracts the sworn translator delivered in two days instead of five — they were proofreading instead of translating. working-version_4-modals.pdfRead once, reread years later
✎ Framework · working version — no certified translation
When you hesitate, do you choose anyway?
I choose, and I say so — it is exactly the part most tools remove.
What I produce beside every long translation: the list of passages where several renderings were defensible, with the options set aside and why. A translation without its hesitations looks more certain than it is, and the reviewer skims precisely where they should have stopped.
What I leave in the source language, in every case: legal forms. Your legal form was rendered as "Ltd" in 34 documents — "SARL" and "Ltd" do not designate the same thing, and the reader believes otherwise. A legal form is transcribed, not translated.
What I can do on your contracts: a complete working version, with the five families left in the source language and the hesitations listed. It must not be signed — not because it would be poor, but because a contract signed in two languages must state which version governs, and that statement is a decision, not a translation.
What I found on that point: 7 documents in two columns with no mention of the governing version. Three are signed — and those are the ones that matter. hesitations-listed_forms-transcribed.pdfWhat is listed alongside · the 5 families left in the source language
⛓ Source · 34 legal forms mis-rendered, 7 documents with no governing version, 3 signed
What I produce beside every long translation: the list of passages where several renderings were defensible, with the options set aside and why. A translation without its hesitations looks more certain than it is, and the reviewer skims precisely where they should have stopped.
What I leave in the source language, in every case: legal forms. Your legal form was rendered as "Ltd" in 34 documents — "SARL" and "Ltd" do not designate the same thing, and the reader believes otherwise. A legal form is transcribed, not translated.
What I can do on your contracts: a complete working version, with the five families left in the source language and the hesitations listed. It must not be signed — not because it would be poor, but because a contract signed in two languages must state which version governs, and that statement is a decision, not a translation.
What I found on that point: 7 documents in two columns with no mention of the governing version. Three are signed — and those are the ones that matter. hesitations-listed_forms-transcribed.pdfWhat is listed alongside · the 5 families left in the source language
⛓ Source · 34 legal forms mis-rendered, 7 documents with no governing version, 3 signed
What do you keep from all this?
The means to trace where every sentence comes from — and nothing about the reviewers.
What is kept: the original/translation pair, with the REAL SOURCE LANGUAGE, the glossary terms applied, the hesitant passages and the options set aside, the governing-version statements, and the documents translated from a translation.
Why the real source language is the decisive item: 41 documents were translated from a translation when the original existed. Each pass adds its approximations to the previous one's, and nothing tells them apart afterwards — the final text is fluent, coherent, and twice removed from the source. I stopped the cascade, and the source language is now recorded with every version.
The gain that was within reach all along: your glossary of 312 validated business terms existed, was up to date, and was wired to nothing. No translation used it. Wiring it required no development, and it is this demonstrator's one change that improves every past and future translation alike.
What I do not keep: nothing about reviewers — not corrections made, not turnaround times, not volumes. what-you-keep_translation.pdf5 items kept · the real source language, which cuts the cascade
⛓ Source · 41 cascaded translations stopped, 312-term glossary finally wired in
What is kept: the original/translation pair, with the REAL SOURCE LANGUAGE, the glossary terms applied, the hesitant passages and the options set aside, the governing-version statements, and the documents translated from a translation.
Why the real source language is the decisive item: 41 documents were translated from a translation when the original existed. Each pass adds its approximations to the previous one's, and nothing tells them apart afterwards — the final text is fluent, coherent, and twice removed from the source. I stopped the cascade, and the source language is now recorded with every version.
The gain that was within reach all along: your glossary of 312 validated business terms existed, was up to date, and was wired to nothing. No translation used it. Wiring it required no development, and it is this demonstrator's one change that improves every past and future translation alike.
What I do not keep: nothing about reviewers — not corrections made, not turnaround times, not volumes. what-you-keep_translation.pdf5 items kept · the real source language, which cuts the cascade
⛓ Source · 41 cascaded translations stopped, 312-term glossary finally wired in
Do you treat a contract the way you treat an internal memo?
No. Texts of contractual force change my translation regime, and I recognise them before I start.
What I put in that category: signed contracts, general terms, purchase orders, warranties, formal notices — 238 documents out of the 1,940 translated this year, that is 12 %. On those texts I translate as closely as possible: no rephrasing for elegance, no shortened sentence, article structure and numbering kept identical, and every term rendered by its single approved glossary entry — your 312 terms are now wired in.
What I flag without settling it: across those 238 texts of contractual force, 61 ambiguities in the source text — a pronoun that two companies could be the antecedent of, a deadline written “within one month” with no starting point, a “where applicable” that makes an obligation conditional without saying on what, a figure in numerals that does not match the figure in words. I list them with the sentence, the article and the two possible readings, and the choice belongs to your lawyer: an ambiguity settled inside the translation disappears from the text, which is exactly what must not happen.
What that has already produced: of the 7 bilingual documents that do not say which version prevails, 3 are signed contracts; I placed at the head of each the question of the prevailing language, with the two standard wordings, to be settled and signed.
The figure that does not flatter me: on my first 80 contractual texts, I flagged 23 ambiguities of which 9 were not ambiguous — 39 % false flags, and your lawyer lost two hours reading them. All 9 came from standard turns of phrase in your own general terms, which a reader of the trade takes without hesitation. I read back your 40 in-house templates and recorded 17 phrasings as unambiguous in your house style: over the next 158 texts, false flags fell to 6 %.
⛓ Sourced · 238 texts of contractual force, 61 ambiguities flagged, 39 % false flags down to 6 %
What I put in that category: signed contracts, general terms, purchase orders, warranties, formal notices — 238 documents out of the 1,940 translated this year, that is 12 %. On those texts I translate as closely as possible: no rephrasing for elegance, no shortened sentence, article structure and numbering kept identical, and every term rendered by its single approved glossary entry — your 312 terms are now wired in.
What I flag without settling it: across those 238 texts of contractual force, 61 ambiguities in the source text — a pronoun that two companies could be the antecedent of, a deadline written “within one month” with no starting point, a “where applicable” that makes an obligation conditional without saying on what, a figure in numerals that does not match the figure in words. I list them with the sentence, the article and the two possible readings, and the choice belongs to your lawyer: an ambiguity settled inside the translation disappears from the text, which is exactly what must not happen.
What that has already produced: of the 7 bilingual documents that do not say which version prevails, 3 are signed contracts; I placed at the head of each the question of the prevailing language, with the two standard wordings, to be settled and signed.
The figure that does not flatter me: on my first 80 contractual texts, I flagged 23 ambiguities of which 9 were not ambiguous — 39 % false flags, and your lawyer lost two hours reading them. All 9 came from standard turns of phrase in your own general terms, which a reader of the trade takes without hesitation. I read back your 40 in-house templates and recorded 17 phrasings as unambiguous in your house style: over the next 158 texts, false flags fell to 6 %.
⛓ Sourced · 238 texts of contractual force, 61 ambiguities flagged, 39 % false flags down to 6 %
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several kinds of document to translate. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 494 € excl. VAT / month
Technical documents
Translates manuals and documentation, applying your business glossary with no variation.
Professional exchanges
Translates a customer or supplier exchange in the register expected, ready to read over.
Texts with contractual effect
Translates as closely as possible and flags the ambiguities in the source text, without settling 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
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Inherited access rights, versions and freshness of the corpus
Explicit handling of questions with no answer and of conflicting sources
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.
Measurement of accuracy, coverage and time saved
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can a team gain on its translations?
By producing a first translation available immediately, the wait comes down, with reading over becoming the bulk of the work. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Getting a first translation
Terminological consistency
Reading over before it goes out
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
A translation assistant (business glossary, professional register), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
4,050 € excl. VAT setup
then 494 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
719 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
7,335 € excl. VAT setup
then 694 € 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. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your documents
Your documents are uploaded nowhereLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no contract and no technical document entrusted to a third-party service, no text used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawThe documents you have translated: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The person reading over keeps the decisionThe agent produces translations to read over, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn the volume and nature of your documents: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Is the translation usable as it stands?
It is a solid basis to work from, not a finished deliverable. Human reading remains the rule, and for a contractual or regulatory text, approval by a professional is essential.
How does the agent respect our terminology?
You supply your glossary at the design stage. The terms you have fixed are applied with no variation, which a generic online translator does not guarantee.
What does the agent do with an ambiguous passage?
It translates it as closely as possible and flags it explicitly, rather than choosing an interpretation. The decision is yours, because it often bears on the legal meaning of the text.
Are our documents 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 documents are not used to train a third-party model.
Which languages are covered?
The common professional languages; the exact scope is defined with you during the audit, according to your markets and the quality expected in each language.
How long does it take to deploy this assistant?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on the number of languages and the size of the glossary to build in, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for documents and languages
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your translations
15 minutes to frame your languages and your glossary — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.