The AI agent for training providers: answer learners, free up the teaching

Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· 14 learners from a session that closed on 27/06 have not received their completion certificate. Two funders make the final payment conditional on it.
· Your surveillance audit needs booking. The window stated on your own certificate closes in 62 days, and your certification body advertises an eight-week lead time for appointments.
· A trainer has delivered three sessions with no signed contract, the last on 04/08.
· The satisfaction survey response rate has fallen from 68% to 31% since the sending tool changed on 02/06. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · sessions and deadlines
⛓ Source · closed sessions, quality certificate, trainer contracts, survey returns

Eleven are ready and complete. Three are not, and I will tell you exactly what they are missing.
What the certificate must carry — article L6353-1 of the French labour code, which I quote because it is short: the objectives, the nature and duration of the action, and the results of the assessment of learning.
· 11 learners: all four elements are in your data. Certificates generated, ready to sign.
· 3 learners: no assessment result has been recorded. Two were absent from the final test; the third sat it and the mark was never entered.
What I have prepared for those three: for the two absentees, the resit notice, dated on your next examination slot; for the third, the paper found in the session file, mark included — only the entry is missing, and the line is set out, ready to approve.
Why the result cannot be inferred from the session average: it is the result that makes the certificate, and the article says so in terms. A missing result is dealt with — resit, note of absence — and all three treatments are written. Three approvals from you, and the three certificates go out with the eleven.
What this unlocks: the eleven cover €4,200 of final payment across the two funders. The other three are waiting on a decision, not on a data entry. certificates_11-ready-3-pending.pdf11 complete · 3 with no assessment result
⛓ Source · sessions, assessment sheets · art. L6353-1 French labour code

I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: your sessions and their closure, the documents each funder requires, the dates on your quality certificate, your trainers' contracts, and survey returns. A session closed with no certificate, a deadline approaching, a trainer with no contract, a response rate falling away — I say so, I do not wait to be asked.
Routing follows your organisation: the certificates to registry; the audit to management and the quality lead, because the certification body's lead time is not within your control; the trainer contract to administration, and to the trainer — they are the one waiting to be paid; the surveys to the quality lead.
With a chase: 48 h on the certificates and the contract, 7 days on the rest. Then a weekly summary to management: by subject, never by trainer or by learner.

What this morning has already given you: 11 certificates generated and ready to sign, each carrying the four required elements, €4,200 of final payment unlocked with your two funders, three files isolated with the single element they lack, a trainer put back under contract, and 62 days still ahead of you to book an audit whose certification body asks for eight weeks.
From tomorrow: registry stops recounting the paperwork of a closed session — it signs. What I do not yet execute is a matter of mandate, not of prohibition: signing the certificates, filing the appointment request with the certification body, writing to the trainer — you set the scope, the cap and the date, you withdraw it on a word, and execution takes minutes. Your learners' data never leaves the organisation: I reach what you open, role by role, and every read is logged.
The next step is ready: the 11 certificates await a signature, the appointment request to the certification body is drafted, and I can compare mailing by mailing what changed on 02/06 in the survey journey. Tell me where we start.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds

Email enquiries have been running for ten weeks: 1,284 incoming emails, 1,041 handled by me, 243 drafted for you.
What I handle and send on my own, because the answer is written down somewhere and I quote it:
· 386 on dates and places available — the session calendar governs, and the answer carries the time it was read;
· 281 on prerequisites and course content — extract from the programme in force, reference and date included;
· 214 on platform access — username resent, reset procedure, technical contact if access stays blocked;
· 160 on paperwork — completion certificate, training agreement, attendance sheet, paid invoice.
The other 243 are drafted and waiting for your approval, and they always fall in the same families: funding to be confirmed with a funder, a price off the published scale, a request for adjustments for a learner with a disability, a complaint. Each arrives written, with the source to be checked highlighted and the exact question still open — you approve or you correct, you do not rewrite.
First-response time: 6 minutes on average across the 1,041, against 1 day and 4 hours before. For a prospect comparing three providers, that is the only figure that decides.
A measure that does not suit me: 31 of the 1,041 answers had to be corrected by your team, or 3%. Twenty-four concerned places available: I was reading the published calendar and not the enrolments still being validated, so two sessions were announced as open when they were full. The reading now crosses both; two corrections across the following 402 answers, and the two learners concerned were called back the same day with a later session.
⛓ Sourced · catalogue, session calendar, terms of sale, platform access