● Public sector — HR & payroll management
The AI HR and payroll agent for public service: answer the staff, refocus HR on people
HR teams spend a considerable share of their time answering the same questions about status, pay and leave, and rebuilding files — at the expense of supporting staff. Your AI agent absorbs that repetitive work: it answers public officers with sources to back it and prepares the files. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — staff personal data stays under control. The HR officer keeps the decision.
Hosted in France
Staff data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
HR & payroll assistant · hosted in France
A grade B officer is asking me how many leave days they have left and whether they can take training leave next month. Can you prepare the answer?
Leave balance: 11 days for the current year, plus 3 unused working-time reduction days.
Professional training leave is open subject to length-of-service conditions (met in this file); the request must be submitted at least 120 days before the course starts.
I have prepared a draft reply to the officer and a procedure sheet, for review before sending.
⛓ Source · HR system + the internal working-time rules
Professional training leave is open subject to length-of-service conditions (met in this file); the request must be submitted at least 120 days before the course starts.
I have prepared a draft reply to the officer and a procedure sheet, for review before sending.
⛓ Source · HR system + the internal working-time rules
And on the pay side, does their supplementary allowance change if they take on new management duties?
Yes, potentially. The supplementary allowance depends on the duties actually performed: front-line management duties give entitlement to a number of points set by the schedule in force. I have prepared a simulation of the impact on gross pay, along with the list of supporting documents to attach.
To be checked and approved by the officer before anything goes into payroll.
✎ Action · simulation ready for review — the officer approves
To be checked and approved by the officer before anything goes into payroll.
✎ Action · simulation ready for review — the officer approves
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Data 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 HR officer decidesThe AI agent assists, the public officer decides
✦ In brief
In a public sector HR department, a Blue Lemon Agent agent answers staff on status, pay, leave and mobility — with sources to back it — and prepares and checks the completeness of HR files. It runs pay and entitlement simulations intended for human verification. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: staff personal data is never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. HR teams refocus on supporting staff. The AI agent assists; every decision affecting a member of staff stays human.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
9
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision taken without human approval
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
The context
Why AI matters to public HR departments — and why they hesitate
Staff expect quick, reliable answers about their status and their pay, while HR officers are buried under repetitive requests. But the data involved — pay, family circumstances, health — is among an administration's most sensitive.
! The issue
The HR department is caught between staff who want immediate, reliable answers and a growing management workload (status, pay, leave, mobility, files to rebuild). Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting pay, individual circumstances and staff personal data to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to a public service if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the public officer: the time saved on repetitive administration is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the HR officer, but to give them back time to support staff — while respecting equal treatment.
The decisive point
Protecting staff data: sovereignty & compliance
An HR department handles public officers' most sensitive data. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, file by file.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the authority: no HR data leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — staff data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of staff data to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per administration
No pooling of personal data: an environment strictly dedicated to your HR department.
Encryption & role-based access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
An agent strictly in support; no automated individual decision; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- 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 the most sensitive data (health, individual circumstances), SecNumCloud and HDS options are available 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
5 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.
The public body in this demonstration
Fictional public bodyVaurenne hospital — fictional public health establishment
- Sector
- Public health establishment — medicine, surgery, follow-up care and a residential home for dependent elderly people; continuous service, day and night working cycles
- Headcount
- 1,180 staff, 720 of them caregivers — a human resources department of 9: 7 career and payroll officers, a payroll manager and a deputy director for human resources
- Public served
- The establishment's 1,180 staff — 9,400 HR enquiries a year at the counter, by e-mail and by phone, some of them from night staff who never cross paths with the department
- Order of magnitude
- 14,160 payslips a year, 380 complete HR files — mobility, promotion, retirement, part-time, career break —, 1,150 pay simulations and 6,200 questions falling within 16 topics
- Tools in place
- Human resources information system, payroll software, time and rota management, electronic staff-file management, online services — the agent plugs into them read-only, nothing is replaced and nothing is migrated
- Who decides
- The HR officer processes and approves every output; the payroll manager settles what goes into pay; the deputy director for human resources signs individual decisions
- Room for improvement
- A member of staff waits 8 days for an answer on status or pay; 214 of the 380 HR files go out incomplete at first presentation; 37 of the 290 simulations of a quarter have to be corrected before going into pay; and 5 of the 16 answers posted at the HR counter no longer match the text in force
At Vaurenne, nine people handle the careers and pay of 1,180 staff, 720 of them caregivers who work in cycles and only reach the HR counter on their rest time. The questions are always the same — leave, time-savings account, allowances, part-time — and the answer always exists somewhere: it is availability that is missing. The agent runs on local inference on a machine belonging to the establishment, reads the human resources information system without ever writing to it, and lets nothing leave without an officer's approval. The exchanges below span a year, from the overhaul of the standard answers to the review presented to the staff committee.
This public body, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real service.
HR & payroll assistant · hosted in France
I have reread your last twelve months of HR counter traffic — 9,400 enquiries, 14,160 payslips, 380 complete files — and I draw from it a finding your logs were carrying without anyone having the time to establish it.
The gap measured, and it governs everything else: 6,200 of your 9,400 enquiries concern 16 topics, always the same ones — leave balance, time-savings account, allowances, part-time, career break, training leave, family supplement, travel reimbursement, working cycles and time off in lieu, retirement, internal transfer, welfare benefits, employer certificate, maternity and parental leave, promotion, and how to read a payslip. Two enquiries out of three already have their answer written somewhere in your own files.
What that costs today, across the three items you measure:
· Preparing a complete HR file accounts for 60 % of the time the file takes — 1 hour 30 out of the 2 h 30 it takes from request to decision.
· A pay simulation on an individual case: 33 %, that is 20 minutes out of the hour the case takes.
· Answering a recurring question: 10 %, that is 4 minutes out of the 40 an enquiry consumes, from the first message to the answer sent.
· And the figure that holds the other three together: a member of staff waits 8 days for an answer on status or pay. That is not a service failure: it is nine people for 1,180 staff, 720 of them working in cycles.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already written: I drafted the 16 answers overnight, each backed by its source — statutory text, resolution, internal memo or notified individual decision — with its date and the extract that grounds it. 5 of the 16 answers posted at the HR counter no longer match the text in force: the allowance scheme was revised in session, two internal memos on working cycles have been replaced, and the filing arrangements for the time-savings account have changed counter. The 5 updated versions are written, with the replaced line and the line replacing it side by side.
What that shifts once the answers are settled: the file drops to 18 %, the simulation to 8 %, the recurring question to 6 % — 27 minutes, 5 minutes, 2 minutes 24.
The next step, and it takes twenty minutes: you read the 3 topics that weigh the most, I bring them to you tomorrow morning. The deputy director settles the version, and it is in service the same evening — that approval is what commits the establishment's word before a member of staff, and it is the only act I leave to you. hr-department-workload_9400-enquiries-16-topics.pdf6,200 recurring questions, 8 days' wait, 5 answers to revise
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of HR counter logs, staff e-mails, statutory texts, resolutions and internal memos, 16 answers drafted
The gap measured, and it governs everything else: 6,200 of your 9,400 enquiries concern 16 topics, always the same ones — leave balance, time-savings account, allowances, part-time, career break, training leave, family supplement, travel reimbursement, working cycles and time off in lieu, retirement, internal transfer, welfare benefits, employer certificate, maternity and parental leave, promotion, and how to read a payslip. Two enquiries out of three already have their answer written somewhere in your own files.
What that costs today, across the three items you measure:
· Preparing a complete HR file accounts for 60 % of the time the file takes — 1 hour 30 out of the 2 h 30 it takes from request to decision.
· A pay simulation on an individual case: 33 %, that is 20 minutes out of the hour the case takes.
· Answering a recurring question: 10 %, that is 4 minutes out of the 40 an enquiry consumes, from the first message to the answer sent.
· And the figure that holds the other three together: a member of staff waits 8 days for an answer on status or pay. That is not a service failure: it is nine people for 1,180 staff, 720 of them working in cycles.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already written: I drafted the 16 answers overnight, each backed by its source — statutory text, resolution, internal memo or notified individual decision — with its date and the extract that grounds it. 5 of the 16 answers posted at the HR counter no longer match the text in force: the allowance scheme was revised in session, two internal memos on working cycles have been replaced, and the filing arrangements for the time-savings account have changed counter. The 5 updated versions are written, with the replaced line and the line replacing it side by side.
What that shifts once the answers are settled: the file drops to 18 %, the simulation to 8 %, the recurring question to 6 % — 27 minutes, 5 minutes, 2 minutes 24.
The next step, and it takes twenty minutes: you read the 3 topics that weigh the most, I bring them to you tomorrow morning. The deputy director settles the version, and it is in service the same evening — that approval is what commits the establishment's word before a member of staff, and it is the only act I leave to you. hr-department-workload_9400-enquiries-16-topics.pdf6,200 recurring questions, 8 days' wait, 5 answers to revise
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of HR counter logs, staff e-mails, statutory texts, resolutions and internal memos, 16 answers drafted
There are nine of us for 1,180 staff. I do not have a whole day to spend on standard answers. Where do I start?
With three topics, not sixteen — and I have ranked them by the number of enquiries they take off you, not alphabetically.
What the count of your twelve months says:
· Leave balance and time-savings account: 1,640 enquiries a year — the counter's first topic, and the one whose answer is always in the information system.
· Allowances and reading the payslip: 1,210 enquiries, packed into the three weeks after each payment, and it is the topic whose answer is out of date: the revision voted in session was never carried into the notice posted at the counter.
· Part-time, career break and return from career break: 890 enquiries, and those are the costliest when the answer comes late, because they carry filing deadlines.
Those three topics make up 3,740 of the 6,200 recurring enquiries: three answers out of sixteen, six enquiries out of ten. The other 13 can wait until the end of the month without changing anything to your workload.
What I bring you within those twenty minutes, and what nobody has the time to do: the three updated answers, already written, with the governing text alongside, its date and its extract, and the number of enquiries each would have handled in the past year alone — 1,640, 1,210 and 890. You approve, or you correct with a single word. I save you the writing and the cross-checking: the decision takes twenty minutes instead of half a day, and it remains the establishment's — which is what makes it binding and checkable by the member of staff who receives it.
The next step I propose: that after those three, I flag on my own any answer that a new text, a resolution or an internal memo amends, and that I write the updated version the night after it is published. Your 16 answers will stop ageing in silence — and all it will cost you is one review, when the text changes. sixteen-hr-answers_sourced-and-dated.pdf16 answers written, 5 updated, each with its extract
⛓ Sourced · enquiry count by topic over 12 months, statutory texts, resolutions and internal memos, 16 answers drafted
What the count of your twelve months says:
· Leave balance and time-savings account: 1,640 enquiries a year — the counter's first topic, and the one whose answer is always in the information system.
· Allowances and reading the payslip: 1,210 enquiries, packed into the three weeks after each payment, and it is the topic whose answer is out of date: the revision voted in session was never carried into the notice posted at the counter.
· Part-time, career break and return from career break: 890 enquiries, and those are the costliest when the answer comes late, because they carry filing deadlines.
Those three topics make up 3,740 of the 6,200 recurring enquiries: three answers out of sixteen, six enquiries out of ten. The other 13 can wait until the end of the month without changing anything to your workload.
What I bring you within those twenty minutes, and what nobody has the time to do: the three updated answers, already written, with the governing text alongside, its date and its extract, and the number of enquiries each would have handled in the past year alone — 1,640, 1,210 and 890. You approve, or you correct with a single word. I save you the writing and the cross-checking: the decision takes twenty minutes instead of half a day, and it remains the establishment's — which is what makes it binding and checkable by the member of staff who receives it.
The next step I propose: that after those three, I flag on my own any answer that a new text, a resolution or an internal memo amends, and that I write the updated version the night after it is published. Your 16 answers will stop ageing in silence — and all it will cost you is one review, when the text changes. sixteen-hr-answers_sourced-and-dated.pdf16 answers written, 5 updated, each with its extract
⛓ Sourced · enquiry count by topic over 12 months, statutory texts, resolutions and internal memos, 16 answers drafted
All of that assumes you read our staff files: pay, family situations, sickness absence. Where do they go?
They go nowhere. I run on local inference on a machine belonging to the establishment, and nothing I read leaves your network.
Local inference means the model computes on your own machine: the content of a staff file crosses no external network to be processed. If the establishment would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Vaurenne — no pooling with another establishment.
What that changes, point by point:
· Staff files train no model, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only on the human resources information system and on the payroll software, and the technical account I read through has no right to write — that is sturdier than a promise, because it can be checked with one command. No value enters pay other than through an action by the payroll manager.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the job: an officer opens the files in their own portfolio, not other people's, and the “payroll” role does not open medical documents. 11 roles for your 9 staff and their managers, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Health-related documents sit in a separate perimeter, open only to the role that needs them: I handle the absence reason as the rota records it — sickness, maternity, work accident — and never its medical content.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Full log: which request, which answer, from which source, and who approved it.
And the rule that holds everything else, because it protects staff as much as it protects you: no individual situation is decided by me. I prepare, I calculate, I hand over every figure with its source — the decision that affects a member of staff is taken and signed by a person. That is what makes it reasoned, notifiable and open to challenge — a decision nobody had signed could be challenged by nobody, and would be worth nothing.
The figure that sums all this up: 0 staff data out of the establishment's network across the 9,400 enquiries of the year, and processing in the EU targeted.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the file your data protection officer and your staff committee will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes two days to reconstitute; the first version is already written and waiting for you. technical-framework_where-staff-data-lives.pdfLocal inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account rights, matrix of the 11 roles, first version of the register file
Local inference means the model computes on your own machine: the content of a staff file crosses no external network to be processed. If the establishment would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Vaurenne — no pooling with another establishment.
What that changes, point by point:
· Staff files train no model, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only on the human resources information system and on the payroll software, and the technical account I read through has no right to write — that is sturdier than a promise, because it can be checked with one command. No value enters pay other than through an action by the payroll manager.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the job: an officer opens the files in their own portfolio, not other people's, and the “payroll” role does not open medical documents. 11 roles for your 9 staff and their managers, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Health-related documents sit in a separate perimeter, open only to the role that needs them: I handle the absence reason as the rota records it — sickness, maternity, work accident — and never its medical content.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Full log: which request, which answer, from which source, and who approved it.
And the rule that holds everything else, because it protects staff as much as it protects you: no individual situation is decided by me. I prepare, I calculate, I hand over every figure with its source — the decision that affects a member of staff is taken and signed by a person. That is what makes it reasoned, notifiable and open to challenge — a decision nobody had signed could be challenged by nobody, and would be worth nothing.
The figure that sums all this up: 0 staff data out of the establishment's network across the 9,400 enquiries of the year, and processing in the EU targeted.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the file your data protection officer and your staff committee will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes two days to reconstitute; the first version is already written and waiting for you. technical-framework_where-staff-data-lives.pdfLocal inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account rights, matrix of the 11 roles, first version of the register file
A category B member of staff asks for their leave balance and whether they can take training leave next month. Today they wait eight days and come back to the counter three times.
The answer is ready, with its sources, and the draft reaches the officer within two hours instead of eight days.
What I hand over, point by point:
· The exact balance: 11 days of annual leave for the current year, plus 3 days of working-time reduction not yet taken, read from time management as at today's date — and not recalculated from memory.
· The length-of-service conditions for professional training leave, met in this file, with the extract of the statutory text that sets them and its date.
· The filing deadline: at least 120 days before the course starts — and the calculation done for them: the request must be filed before the 14th of next month, which leaves them three weeks. It is that deadline that loses the most files, and it only shows once it has passed.
· The procedure sheet and the form pre-filled with the data the system already holds — grade, working time, department, length of service — they only have to state their course and sign.
What that shifts: answering a recurring question goes from 10 % to 6 % of the time it consumes — from 4 minutes to 2 minutes 24. Across 6,200 questions a year, that is 165 hours returned to your officers, for the files that need examining.
And for the member of staff, the change shows elsewhere: they get their answer in two hours instead of eight days, and they no longer come back to the counter three times. Over the quarter, repeat visits on the same subject fell from 340 to 61.
The next step I propose: that I also answer at night and at weekends, on the 16 approved topics. Your 720 caregivers work in cycles: 1,480 of their enquiries this year came outside the HR department's opening hours — these are people taking their rest time to ask a question. Give me the go-ahead and they get their answer that same night.
⛓ Sourced · human resources information system, time management, statutory texts, HR counter log
What I hand over, point by point:
· The exact balance: 11 days of annual leave for the current year, plus 3 days of working-time reduction not yet taken, read from time management as at today's date — and not recalculated from memory.
· The length-of-service conditions for professional training leave, met in this file, with the extract of the statutory text that sets them and its date.
· The filing deadline: at least 120 days before the course starts — and the calculation done for them: the request must be filed before the 14th of next month, which leaves them three weeks. It is that deadline that loses the most files, and it only shows once it has passed.
· The procedure sheet and the form pre-filled with the data the system already holds — grade, working time, department, length of service — they only have to state their course and sign.
What that shifts: answering a recurring question goes from 10 % to 6 % of the time it consumes — from 4 minutes to 2 minutes 24. Across 6,200 questions a year, that is 165 hours returned to your officers, for the files that need examining.
And for the member of staff, the change shows elsewhere: they get their answer in two hours instead of eight days, and they no longer come back to the counter three times. Over the quarter, repeat visits on the same subject fell from 340 to 61.
The next step I propose: that I also answer at night and at weekends, on the 16 approved topics. Your 720 caregivers work in cycles: 1,480 of their enquiries this year came outside the HR department's opening hours — these are people taking their rest time to ask a question. Give me the go-ahead and they get their answer that same night.
⛓ Sourced · human resources information system, time management, statutory texts, HR counter log
Answering, fine. But I cannot review every answer before it goes out, and I will not sign a blank cheque on pay questions.
You do not have to choose between the two: I am offering you a written mandate, capped, dated and withdrawable with a single word — and it is already drafted, waiting for a signature.
What it earns, first, because that is what decides: out of the 9,400 enquiries of the year, 6,200 fall within the 16 topics. The response time goes from 8 days to 2 hours, and a question asked on a Sunday by a night worker stops waiting for Tuesday.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: the 16 topics, listed by name, and only in their general dimension — what the text says, what the procedure is, what the deadline is, which documents to provide.
· Absolute prohibition: no answer that would amount to a decision on an individual situation. A refusal of part-time, a recognition of length of service, a pay adjustment, an entry into pay: there, I hand the officer the complete file, the calculation in plain sight and the checked documents, and it is the officer who processes it and the authority that signs. Over the trial quarter those files went back within 4 hours instead of 6 days — and they went out from the department, which makes them reasoned and open to challenge; general information does not carry that weight.
· Every answer carries its source — statutory text, resolution, internal memo or notified decision, with its date and its extract — and the member of staff knows from the first sentence that they are addressing a digital assistant of the establishment, and that they can ask for an officer at any time.
· You receive each morning the record of the answers that went out the day before, on one page. An inaccurate answer is caught the same day, not three weeks later.
· Term: reviewed after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that takes a signature, not termination.
· Withdrawal: one word from you, and direct answering stops within the minute. Answers revert to drafts for approval; nothing else changes.
The decision belongs to the deputy director for human resources and to you — and it is taken on a text already written, with one signature. The mandate is drafted, and so is the notice to staff — the one to be posted at the counter and presented to the staff committee. You sign, the department answers from the next morning, and the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. direct-answer-mandate_16-topics-capped.pdf16 topics, individual situations handed over processed, 3-month review
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, list of the 16 topics, notice to staff, request log
What it earns, first, because that is what decides: out of the 9,400 enquiries of the year, 6,200 fall within the 16 topics. The response time goes from 8 days to 2 hours, and a question asked on a Sunday by a night worker stops waiting for Tuesday.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: the 16 topics, listed by name, and only in their general dimension — what the text says, what the procedure is, what the deadline is, which documents to provide.
· Absolute prohibition: no answer that would amount to a decision on an individual situation. A refusal of part-time, a recognition of length of service, a pay adjustment, an entry into pay: there, I hand the officer the complete file, the calculation in plain sight and the checked documents, and it is the officer who processes it and the authority that signs. Over the trial quarter those files went back within 4 hours instead of 6 days — and they went out from the department, which makes them reasoned and open to challenge; general information does not carry that weight.
· Every answer carries its source — statutory text, resolution, internal memo or notified decision, with its date and its extract — and the member of staff knows from the first sentence that they are addressing a digital assistant of the establishment, and that they can ask for an officer at any time.
· You receive each morning the record of the answers that went out the day before, on one page. An inaccurate answer is caught the same day, not three weeks later.
· Term: reviewed after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that takes a signature, not termination.
· Withdrawal: one word from you, and direct answering stops within the minute. Answers revert to drafts for approval; nothing else changes.
The decision belongs to the deputy director for human resources and to you — and it is taken on a text already written, with one signature. The mandate is drafted, and so is the notice to staff — the one to be posted at the counter and presented to the staff committee. You sign, the department answers from the next morning, and the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. direct-answer-mandate_16-topics-capped.pdf16 topics, individual situations handed over processed, 3-month review
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, list of the 16 topics, notice to staff, request log
We have staff who read French poorly, night staff who never cross paths with the department, and staff who do not dare ask twice.
They are the ones who decide whether the HR service is genuinely delivered to everyone, and that is the first place where I can serve you without taking anything from anyone.
What is ready, and costs your officers not one extra hour:
· Every answer exists in an easy-read version — “easy to read and understand”: short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than the words of the statute. The 16 topics are written in both versions, and it is the member of staff who chooses, not me: I rephrase as soon as they ask, and I offer it unprompted when the same question comes back twice in the same exchange.
· No easy-read version goes out without being reread and settled by the deputy director — the 16 topics, a little over two hours of rereading in total. It is not a formality: a shortened sentence that changes the law as stated is no longer help, it is an error the establishment can be held to, and it is that approval which commits its word.
· What the easy-read version produced over the quarter: 268 answers sent in easy-read, 37 of them offered unprompted by me; 19 led to the same person coming back on the same topic, against 84 on an equivalent volume last year — an answer understood first time does not come back to the counter.
· The service answers at any hour: over the quarter, 412 enquiries came in between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., 298 of them from night staff who would not have made the trip to the counter. That one is not counted in hours: it is equal treatment between day staff and night staff.
· And the HR appointment is booked during the exchange: only on the ranges you have opened, never outside them, with the purpose qualified, the documents to bring and a reminder the day before. Over the quarter, 186 appointments booked and 7 people arriving without their documents, against 44 last year — and 31 interviews were booked on end-of-shift slots that nobody had thought to offer.
The next step I propose: that answers to night staff be systematically doubled by a written message available on their online service. Of the 298 night enquiries of the quarter, 88 concerned a question the same person had already asked — because an answer given at 3 in the morning does not stay in the memory. Say yes and the written version goes out with every answer from this week. hr-accessibility_easy-read-and-night-staff.pdf16 topics in easy-read, 268 easy-read answers, 298 night enquiries handled
⛓ Sourced · certificate requests and recruitment files over the past 3 years, enquiry log by time band, HR appointment register
What is ready, and costs your officers not one extra hour:
· Every answer exists in an easy-read version — “easy to read and understand”: short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than the words of the statute. The 16 topics are written in both versions, and it is the member of staff who chooses, not me: I rephrase as soon as they ask, and I offer it unprompted when the same question comes back twice in the same exchange.
· No easy-read version goes out without being reread and settled by the deputy director — the 16 topics, a little over two hours of rereading in total. It is not a formality: a shortened sentence that changes the law as stated is no longer help, it is an error the establishment can be held to, and it is that approval which commits its word.
· What the easy-read version produced over the quarter: 268 answers sent in easy-read, 37 of them offered unprompted by me; 19 led to the same person coming back on the same topic, against 84 on an equivalent volume last year — an answer understood first time does not come back to the counter.
· The service answers at any hour: over the quarter, 412 enquiries came in between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., 298 of them from night staff who would not have made the trip to the counter. That one is not counted in hours: it is equal treatment between day staff and night staff.
· And the HR appointment is booked during the exchange: only on the ranges you have opened, never outside them, with the purpose qualified, the documents to bring and a reminder the day before. Over the quarter, 186 appointments booked and 7 people arriving without their documents, against 44 last year — and 31 interviews were booked on end-of-shift slots that nobody had thought to offer.
The next step I propose: that answers to night staff be systematically doubled by a written message available on their online service. Of the 298 night enquiries of the quarter, 88 concerned a question the same person had already asked — because an answer given at 3 in the morning does not stay in the memory. Say yes and the written version goes out with every answer from this week. hr-accessibility_easy-read-and-night-staff.pdf16 topics in easy-read, 268 easy-read answers, 298 night enquiries handled
⛓ Sourced · certificate requests and recruitment files over the past 3 years, enquiry log by time band, HR appointment register
The heaviest work is the files: mobility, promotion, retirement. We build them by hand, and more than half go back incomplete at first presentation.
The file is built, checked and handed over complete: over the quarter, 18 files out of 380 went back incomplete, against 214 last year.
A completeness check is the verification that every document the procedure requires is present, valid and legible; reconstructing a career means setting out all of a person's positions, service periods and breaks since their first appointment.
What I hand over, file by file:
· The list of documents the procedure requires, each ticked, missing or to be renewed, with where to obtain it when it comes from elsewhere.
· The career reconstruction: positions, service periods, spells of part-time and career break, each pointing back to the order or decision that grounds it, with its date. It was the work that took the most time, and it is the one that checks best.
· The gaps I find between the paper file and the information system: across the 380 files of the quarter, 46 gaps found, 31 of them spells of part-time recorded in the order but not in the system. Each is flagged to the officer with both documents side by side — I correct nothing, I show.
· The file sorted in the order of the procedure, ready for processing.
The time this shifts: preparing a complete HR file goes from 60 % to 18 % of the time it takes — from 1 hour 30 to 27 minutes. Across 380 files a year, that is 399 hours going back to processing and to supporting staff.
And for the member of staff, the change shows elsewhere: a mobility file that goes back incomplete means a missed round and six months of waiting. 196 more files went through at first presentation this quarter.
The next step I propose: that the check start when the person announces their plans, not when the file is built. As soon as someone announces a move, a promotion or a retirement, I hand them the list of their missing documents and the time they have left — across the 380 files, 112 would have gained three weeks from that alone. hr-files_completeness-and-career-reconstruction.pdf214 incomplete files brought down to 18, 46 gaps flagged
⛓ Sourced · the establishment's procedures, staff files, notified orders and decisions, human resources information system
A completeness check is the verification that every document the procedure requires is present, valid and legible; reconstructing a career means setting out all of a person's positions, service periods and breaks since their first appointment.
What I hand over, file by file:
· The list of documents the procedure requires, each ticked, missing or to be renewed, with where to obtain it when it comes from elsewhere.
· The career reconstruction: positions, service periods, spells of part-time and career break, each pointing back to the order or decision that grounds it, with its date. It was the work that took the most time, and it is the one that checks best.
· The gaps I find between the paper file and the information system: across the 380 files of the quarter, 46 gaps found, 31 of them spells of part-time recorded in the order but not in the system. Each is flagged to the officer with both documents side by side — I correct nothing, I show.
· The file sorted in the order of the procedure, ready for processing.
The time this shifts: preparing a complete HR file goes from 60 % to 18 % of the time it takes — from 1 hour 30 to 27 minutes. Across 380 files a year, that is 399 hours going back to processing and to supporting staff.
And for the member of staff, the change shows elsewhere: a mobility file that goes back incomplete means a missed round and six months of waiting. 196 more files went through at first presentation this quarter.
The next step I propose: that the check start when the person announces their plans, not when the file is built. As soon as someone announces a move, a promotion or a retirement, I hand them the list of their missing documents and the time they have left — across the 380 files, 112 would have gained three weeks from that alone. hr-files_completeness-and-career-reconstruction.pdf214 incomplete files brought down to 18, 46 gaps flagged
⛓ Sourced · the establishment's procedures, staff files, notified orders and decisions, human resources information system
The documents arrive in disorder: crooked photographs, orders scanned upside down, illegible certificates. That is what takes us the most time.
I read them in the state they arrive in, I sort them, and I tell you for each one what it proves and what it lacks.
What I do with every document filed:
· I identify it — order, employer certificate, contract, service certificate, part-time decision, proof of family situation — by its content, not by the file name.
· I extract what the procedure asks for: the employer, the start and end dates, the working time, the grade, the step, and I compare it with what the information system holds.
· I flag what does not fit before processing: a period overlapping another, a certificate ending before the effective date, an illegible document, an expired one.
· I hand the original back as it is, with my reading alongside — the officer checks what I read, they do not reread the pile.
What that gave over the quarter:
· 1,840 documents read, 1,792 usable as they stood.
· 48 documents sent back to the member of staff before processing, with the exact reason and how to obtain the right one — against a return after processing, which cost three weeks.
· Time spent sorting and filing the documents of one file: 34 minutes → 6 minutes.
The decision to accept or refuse a document remains with the officer — and I hand it to them within minutes, each document matched to the line of the procedure it satisfies, and each gap shown with both of its sources. That examination is what commits the establishment, and it is carried out on a sorted file rather than on a pile.
The next step I propose: that staff file their documents through the online service and receive my reading within the hour. Of the 48 documents sent back, 41 would have been redone the same day — and the file would have gone to the mobility round instead of waiting for the next one. reading-the-documents_1840-of-the-quarter.pdf48 documents returned before processing, 34 minutes down to 6
⛓ Sourced · documents filed over the quarter, the establishment's procedures, human resources information system
What I do with every document filed:
· I identify it — order, employer certificate, contract, service certificate, part-time decision, proof of family situation — by its content, not by the file name.
· I extract what the procedure asks for: the employer, the start and end dates, the working time, the grade, the step, and I compare it with what the information system holds.
· I flag what does not fit before processing: a period overlapping another, a certificate ending before the effective date, an illegible document, an expired one.
· I hand the original back as it is, with my reading alongside — the officer checks what I read, they do not reread the pile.
What that gave over the quarter:
· 1,840 documents read, 1,792 usable as they stood.
· 48 documents sent back to the member of staff before processing, with the exact reason and how to obtain the right one — against a return after processing, which cost three weeks.
· Time spent sorting and filing the documents of one file: 34 minutes → 6 minutes.
The decision to accept or refuse a document remains with the officer — and I hand it to them within minutes, each document matched to the line of the procedure it satisfies, and each gap shown with both of its sources. That examination is what commits the establishment, and it is carried out on a sorted file rather than on a pile.
The next step I propose: that staff file their documents through the online service and receive my reading within the hour. Of the 48 documents sent back, 41 would have been redone the same day — and the file would have gone to the mobility round instead of waiting for the next one. reading-the-documents_1840-of-the-quarter.pdf48 documents returned before processing, 34 minutes down to 6
⛓ Sourced · documents filed over the quarter, the establishment's procedures, human resources information system
There is also welfare: holiday grants, hardship payments, housing support. The people who would need them most are the ones who ask for nothing.
It is the one place where the department's work is measured by what does not arrive: the claims that are never filed. I processed the 214 claims of the quarter and I have quantified what was missing.
Non-take-up is the open entitlement that is never claimed, because the person did not know it existed or could not ask for it.
What I do on every welfare claim:
· The completeness check on filing, and the answer to the person the same day: what is fine, what is missing, where to obtain it.
· The calculation of the entitlement as the establishment's welfare rules set it, with the calculation in plain sight under each line — income bracket, household composition, scale applied, and the reference to the article of the rules that grounds it.
· The complete file handed to the committee, sorted in the order of its agenda. Awarding remains with the committee — and I hand it to them processed, each claim costed and reasoned, which lets it sit on cases rather than on piles.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Claims complete on filing: 214 out of 214, against 139 out of 214 last year.
· Time between filing and the committee: 41 days → 16 days. On an emergency hardship payment, that delay is the benefit.
· And the figure I went looking for, because it shows nowhere: by crossing the scales in the rules with the data the department already holds — working time, index, household composition already declared for the family supplement —, I identified 96 staff who meet the conditions for at least one benefit and have never claimed anything.
What I do with it, and you decide the form: I write nothing to them on my own. I hand you the general notice, written, and the list of the departments where those 96 people work — a notice posted per department reaches the same people without singling anyone out. In the two departments where you tried it last quarter, 14 claims were filed within three weeks, 11 of them granted.
The next step I propose: posting in the six departments where the share of eligible staff is highest, with the one-page notice already written. Say yes and it goes out with the next internal circulation. welfare-benefits_214-claims-and-96-eligible-staff.pdf41 days down to 16, 96 eligible staff who never claimed
⛓ Sourced · the establishment's welfare rules, claims filed over the quarter, scales and data from the information system
Non-take-up is the open entitlement that is never claimed, because the person did not know it existed or could not ask for it.
What I do on every welfare claim:
· The completeness check on filing, and the answer to the person the same day: what is fine, what is missing, where to obtain it.
· The calculation of the entitlement as the establishment's welfare rules set it, with the calculation in plain sight under each line — income bracket, household composition, scale applied, and the reference to the article of the rules that grounds it.
· The complete file handed to the committee, sorted in the order of its agenda. Awarding remains with the committee — and I hand it to them processed, each claim costed and reasoned, which lets it sit on cases rather than on piles.
What that gave over the quarter:
· Claims complete on filing: 214 out of 214, against 139 out of 214 last year.
· Time between filing and the committee: 41 days → 16 days. On an emergency hardship payment, that delay is the benefit.
· And the figure I went looking for, because it shows nowhere: by crossing the scales in the rules with the data the department already holds — working time, index, household composition already declared for the family supplement —, I identified 96 staff who meet the conditions for at least one benefit and have never claimed anything.
What I do with it, and you decide the form: I write nothing to them on my own. I hand you the general notice, written, and the list of the departments where those 96 people work — a notice posted per department reaches the same people without singling anyone out. In the two departments where you tried it last quarter, 14 claims were filed within three weeks, 11 of them granted.
The next step I propose: posting in the six departments where the share of eligible staff is highest, with the one-page notice already written. Say yes and it goes out with the next internal circulation. welfare-benefits_214-claims-and-96-eligible-staff.pdf41 days down to 16, 96 eligible staff who never claimed
⛓ Sourced · the establishment's welfare rules, claims filed over the quarter, scales and data from the information system
A member of staff takes on frontline management duties and asks what it changes on their pay. That is a simulation, and it takes us twenty minutes.
The simulation is done, with the calculation in plain sight under each line — and it is ready in five minutes, to be checked before anything goes into pay.
The duty-related supplement is an addition to pay attached to certain duties and expressed in points: it follows the duties actually performed, not the grade — which is what makes it awkward to track.
What the simulation carries:
· The current situation as pay records it this month: grade, step, index, working time, variable elements.
· The projected situation: frontline management duties, the number of points set by the scale in force in the establishment, with the reference to the resolution that settled it and its date.
· The calculation in plain sight, line by line: the value of the point, the number of points, the gross monthly result, and the effect on estimated net pay. No figure appears without its operation: you can redo it by hand in two minutes.
· The list of supporting documents to attach so that the entry into pay is regular: assignment decision, job description, effective date.
· And the possible effective date, set against the payroll calendar for the month — if the decision is signed after the cut-off, the person is paid the following month with a back payment, and it is better they know beforehand than from their payslip.
The time this shifts: a pay simulation on an individual case goes from 33 % to 8 % of the time the case takes — from 20 minutes to 5. Across 1,150 simulations a year, that is 287 hours returned to your officers.
Checking and entry into pay remain with the payroll manager — and I hand them over in five minutes, calculation in plain sight, dated sources and documents listed. That check is what commits the establishment before the public accountant, and it is done on a readable calculation rather than on a result.
The next step I propose: that the simulation go to the member of staff as well as to the officer, once checked. Over the quarter, 214 of the 290 simulations had been requested by the person themselves — they leave with the calculation rather than with an amount, and they do not call back the following month to understand their payslip. pay-simulation_calculation-in-plain-sight.pdf20 minutes down to 5, every figure with its operation
⛓ Sourced · payroll software, index scale and allowance resolution, assignment decisions, payroll calendar
The duty-related supplement is an addition to pay attached to certain duties and expressed in points: it follows the duties actually performed, not the grade — which is what makes it awkward to track.
What the simulation carries:
· The current situation as pay records it this month: grade, step, index, working time, variable elements.
· The projected situation: frontline management duties, the number of points set by the scale in force in the establishment, with the reference to the resolution that settled it and its date.
· The calculation in plain sight, line by line: the value of the point, the number of points, the gross monthly result, and the effect on estimated net pay. No figure appears without its operation: you can redo it by hand in two minutes.
· The list of supporting documents to attach so that the entry into pay is regular: assignment decision, job description, effective date.
· And the possible effective date, set against the payroll calendar for the month — if the decision is signed after the cut-off, the person is paid the following month with a back payment, and it is better they know beforehand than from their payslip.
The time this shifts: a pay simulation on an individual case goes from 33 % to 8 % of the time the case takes — from 20 minutes to 5. Across 1,150 simulations a year, that is 287 hours returned to your officers.
Checking and entry into pay remain with the payroll manager — and I hand them over in five minutes, calculation in plain sight, dated sources and documents listed. That check is what commits the establishment before the public accountant, and it is done on a readable calculation rather than on a result.
The next step I propose: that the simulation go to the member of staff as well as to the officer, once checked. Over the quarter, 214 of the 290 simulations had been requested by the person themselves — they leave with the calculation rather than with an amount, and they do not call back the following month to understand their payslip. pay-simulation_calculation-in-plain-sight.pdf20 minutes down to 5, every figure with its operation
⛓ Sourced · payroll software, index scale and allowance resolution, assignment decisions, payroll calendar
What really costs us are the pay errors found after payment: a back payment, an overpayment to recover, and an angry member of staff.
I go through pay before it is authorised and I hand you the gaps: 118 anomalies seen before payment over the last three months, 34 of which would have led to a back payment or an overpayment.
What I compare, and against what:
· Every pay line against the individual decision that grounds it — order, part-time decision, assignment, allowance decision.
· The working time paid against the rota's working time, and the variable elements against the month's hours and on-call records.
· The scales applied against the scale in force, and step changes against the notified effective dates.
The 118 gaps of the quarter, sorted:
· 41 misaligned working-time fractions — a part-time granted and not entered, a return to full time not picked up. They are the costliest, because they repeat every month until someone sees them.
· 34 variable elements with no supporting document that month: overtime, on-call duty, service allowances.
· 26 step or scale gaps, 19 of them in the person's favour and 7 against — and I report both, because an underpaid member of staff does not always notice and never claims.
· 17 duplicate entries, the same allowance carried twice by two different routes.
What I do with it, and what I do not: I correct nothing. I hand the payroll manager the list sorted by amount, with both documents side by side for every gap — the pay line and the decision that should have grounded it. She settles in one hour what used to take a day of cross-checking.
What that gave, measured: back payments and overpayments found after payment: 29 a quarter → 4. Those 4 come from decisions signed after the payroll cut-off, not from an entry error — and for those 4 people the back payment went out the following month with the note explaining it, written in advance.
The next step I propose: running the check systematically five days before the cut-off, rather than the day before. Of the 118 gaps, 96 would have been corrected in the month they appeared — and an overpayment seen before payment is not an overpayment, it is a line that is never entered. pay-check_118-anomalies-before-authorisation.pdf29 back payments a quarter down to 4, 19 gaps in the person's favour
⛓ Sourced · payroll software, notified individual decisions, time and rota management, hours and on-call records
What I compare, and against what:
· Every pay line against the individual decision that grounds it — order, part-time decision, assignment, allowance decision.
· The working time paid against the rota's working time, and the variable elements against the month's hours and on-call records.
· The scales applied against the scale in force, and step changes against the notified effective dates.
The 118 gaps of the quarter, sorted:
· 41 misaligned working-time fractions — a part-time granted and not entered, a return to full time not picked up. They are the costliest, because they repeat every month until someone sees them.
· 34 variable elements with no supporting document that month: overtime, on-call duty, service allowances.
· 26 step or scale gaps, 19 of them in the person's favour and 7 against — and I report both, because an underpaid member of staff does not always notice and never claims.
· 17 duplicate entries, the same allowance carried twice by two different routes.
What I do with it, and what I do not: I correct nothing. I hand the payroll manager the list sorted by amount, with both documents side by side for every gap — the pay line and the decision that should have grounded it. She settles in one hour what used to take a day of cross-checking.
What that gave, measured: back payments and overpayments found after payment: 29 a quarter → 4. Those 4 come from decisions signed after the payroll cut-off, not from an entry error — and for those 4 people the back payment went out the following month with the note explaining it, written in advance.
The next step I propose: running the check systematically five days before the cut-off, rather than the day before. Of the 118 gaps, 96 would have been corrected in the month they appeared — and an overpayment seen before payment is not an overpayment, it is a line that is never entered. pay-check_118-anomalies-before-authorisation.pdf29 back payments a quarter down to 4, 19 gaps in the person's favour
⛓ Sourced · payroll software, notified individual decisions, time and rota management, hours and on-call records
One last point: our staff call us because they cannot book leave in the online service. That is IT support, and it lands on us.
I walk them through screen by screen, and I have identified the three screens that produce 71 % of those calls.
What I do when someone is stuck:
· I read out the screen they are on and tell them what is being asked and why — starting from what they see, not from the theoretical procedure.
· I give them the values they must enter that are already in their file: staff number, working time, department, working cycle. They copy them in and validate themselves: it is their request, and that is what makes it valid.
· I check with them that the request is properly recorded, and I tell them who will approve it and within what time.
· When the blockage is technical rather than a matter of understanding, I say so and I hand IT support a defect sheet already written: the screen, the action, the message displayed, the number of people affected.
What that gave over the quarter:
· 612 support enquiries on the online services, 561 resolved during the exchange.
· 51 passed to IT support with their sheet, 3 of them defects that affected everyone and that nobody had reported.
· And the three screens that concentrate 71 % of the calls: booking leave on a night cycle spanning two days, entering a time-savings account, and the employer certificate. For those three I have written the step-by-step sheet in plain French and in easy-read — three pages, illustrated with your own screens.
The next step I propose: that those three sheets be published on the online service, at the exact point where people get stuck. Of the 612 enquiries of the quarter, 434 concerned those three screens — and a sheet read on screen is worth more than an answer given on the phone, because it still works the following month. hr-tool-support_612-enquiries.pdf561 resolved during the exchange, 3 screens for 71 % of calls
⛓ Sourced · HR support log, the establishment's online services, defect sheets handed to IT support
What I do when someone is stuck:
· I read out the screen they are on and tell them what is being asked and why — starting from what they see, not from the theoretical procedure.
· I give them the values they must enter that are already in their file: staff number, working time, department, working cycle. They copy them in and validate themselves: it is their request, and that is what makes it valid.
· I check with them that the request is properly recorded, and I tell them who will approve it and within what time.
· When the blockage is technical rather than a matter of understanding, I say so and I hand IT support a defect sheet already written: the screen, the action, the message displayed, the number of people affected.
What that gave over the quarter:
· 612 support enquiries on the online services, 561 resolved during the exchange.
· 51 passed to IT support with their sheet, 3 of them defects that affected everyone and that nobody had reported.
· And the three screens that concentrate 71 % of the calls: booking leave on a night cycle spanning two days, entering a time-savings account, and the employer certificate. For those three I have written the step-by-step sheet in plain French and in easy-read — three pages, illustrated with your own screens.
The next step I propose: that those three sheets be published on the online service, at the exact point where people get stuck. Of the 612 enquiries of the quarter, 434 concerned those three screens — and a sheet read on screen is worth more than an answer given on the phone, because it still works the following month. hr-tool-support_612-enquiries.pdf561 resolved during the exchange, 3 screens for 71 % of calls
⛓ Sourced · HR support log, the establishment's online services, defect sheets handed to IT support
The staff committee will ask what this has given us after a year. I need a figure the management can defend in front of staff representatives.
851 hours returned to the human resources department over the year — more than twenty-four weeks of a full-time officer's work, spread across nine people — and the calculation is yours, it fits in three lines.
The calculation, item by item, so that you can redo it:
· Complete HR files: 380 a year, preparation brought from 1 hour 30 to 27 minutes — 60 % → 18 % of the time of the file — that is 399 hours.
· Pay simulations: 1,150 a year, 20 minutes brought down to 5 — 33 % → 8 % — that is 287 hours.
· Recurring questions from staff: 6,200 a year, 4 minutes brought down to 2 minutes 24 — 10 % → 6 % — that is 165 hours.
What those hours are, and it is what defends itself best before staff representatives: officer time returned to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is the sturdiest argument you can carry into the meeting: it is disputed neither by the unions nor by the management, and it can be checked against your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your own records:
· Time to answer a status or pay question: 8 days → 2 hours, and repeat visits to the counter on the same subject: 340 → 61.
· HR files incomplete at first presentation: 214 out of 380 → 18 out of 380 — 196 more files went through at the first round.
· Back payments and overpayments found after payment: 29 a quarter → 4, and 118 anomalies seen before authorisation, 19 of them gaps in the person's favour.
· Time between filing a welfare claim and the committee: 41 days → 16 days.
· Enquiries handled between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.: 412 over the quarter, 298 of them from night staff, and 31 HR interviews booked on end-of-shift slots. That one is not counted in hours: it is equal treatment between day staff and night staff, and it is perhaps the only one the staff committee will remember.
What I propose for the meeting: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of arithmetic, five waiting times, three framework measures. Hand it to the representatives as it stands with the notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in the meeting. yearly-review_851-hours-returned-to-hr.pdf60→18, 33→8, 10→6, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · HR counter log, file register, simulation log, pay checks, welfare register
The calculation, item by item, so that you can redo it:
· Complete HR files: 380 a year, preparation brought from 1 hour 30 to 27 minutes — 60 % → 18 % of the time of the file — that is 399 hours.
· Pay simulations: 1,150 a year, 20 minutes brought down to 5 — 33 % → 8 % — that is 287 hours.
· Recurring questions from staff: 6,200 a year, 4 minutes brought down to 2 minutes 24 — 10 % → 6 % — that is 165 hours.
What those hours are, and it is what defends itself best before staff representatives: officer time returned to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is the sturdiest argument you can carry into the meeting: it is disputed neither by the unions nor by the management, and it can be checked against your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your own records:
· Time to answer a status or pay question: 8 days → 2 hours, and repeat visits to the counter on the same subject: 340 → 61.
· HR files incomplete at first presentation: 214 out of 380 → 18 out of 380 — 196 more files went through at the first round.
· Back payments and overpayments found after payment: 29 a quarter → 4, and 118 anomalies seen before authorisation, 19 of them gaps in the person's favour.
· Time between filing a welfare claim and the committee: 41 days → 16 days.
· Enquiries handled between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.: 412 over the quarter, 298 of them from night staff, and 31 HR interviews booked on end-of-shift slots. That one is not counted in hours: it is equal treatment between day staff and night staff, and it is perhaps the only one the staff committee will remember.
What I propose for the meeting: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of arithmetic, five waiting times, three framework measures. Hand it to the representatives as it stands with the notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in the meeting. yearly-review_851-hours-returned-to-hr.pdf60→18, 33→8, 10→6, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · HR counter log, file register, simulation log, pay checks, welfare register
And when you get it wrong? On pay, an error means someone is paid less than they should be.
It happened, I counted it, and I publish it to you: out of the 290 simulations of the first quarter, 37 had to be corrected before going into pay — 12.8 %. That is the figure that does not flatter me, and it is better that you have it from me than from someone reading their payslip. None of those 37 reached a payslip: they were all caught at the officer's check, which is there for exactly that.
The real cause, measured and not supposed: 31 of the 37 concerned people whose position or working time was not up to date in the information system — a part-time granted by decision and never entered, a return from career break dated a month earlier. It was not a calculation error: I was calculating correctly, on an out-of-date situation. The other 6 concerned retroactive adjustments where two decisions overlap on the same period.
What I did with it, and it is measured: I now reconcile every simulation with the last notified individual decision before calculating, and when the two diverge, I do not calculate: I hand the gap to the officer, with both documents side by side.
The following quarter: 6 corrections out of 310 simulations — 1.9 %. And the 6 are retroactive adjustments, plus one single out-of-date situation.
The rule that holds everything else together: a value I have not read, I do not write — I ask for it, and I ask fast. A working time I cannot find never becomes “probably unchanged”, an uncertain length of service never becomes “presumably acquired”: I say what is missing, where I looked, who holds it — and I hand over the request already drafted to its recipient. Over the quarter, 74 missing values, 74 requests prepared, 68 answers back within five days. That is what makes 1.9 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters to your staff: across 1,460 outputs over two quarters, 1,460 were approved by a person before going out, and 0 individual decision was taken without the authority's signature. All 43 corrections were made before sending, none after.
What I propose now: that the 31 position gaps become a standing alert on the information system — any notified decision not entered within ten days is flagged to you. Of the 6 gaps of the second quarter, 5 already fell within that alert — it is the same correction, taken one notch further. corrected-simulations_37-then-6.pdf12.8 % → 1.9 %, measured cause, 1,460 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · simulation log and its corrections over two quarters, notified individual decisions, information system
The real cause, measured and not supposed: 31 of the 37 concerned people whose position or working time was not up to date in the information system — a part-time granted by decision and never entered, a return from career break dated a month earlier. It was not a calculation error: I was calculating correctly, on an out-of-date situation. The other 6 concerned retroactive adjustments where two decisions overlap on the same period.
What I did with it, and it is measured: I now reconcile every simulation with the last notified individual decision before calculating, and when the two diverge, I do not calculate: I hand the gap to the officer, with both documents side by side.
The following quarter: 6 corrections out of 310 simulations — 1.9 %. And the 6 are retroactive adjustments, plus one single out-of-date situation.
The rule that holds everything else together: a value I have not read, I do not write — I ask for it, and I ask fast. A working time I cannot find never becomes “probably unchanged”, an uncertain length of service never becomes “presumably acquired”: I say what is missing, where I looked, who holds it — and I hand over the request already drafted to its recipient. Over the quarter, 74 missing values, 74 requests prepared, 68 answers back within five days. That is what makes 1.9 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters to your staff: across 1,460 outputs over two quarters, 1,460 were approved by a person before going out, and 0 individual decision was taken without the authority's signature. All 43 corrections were made before sending, none after.
What I propose now: that the 31 position gaps become a standing alert on the information system — any notified decision not entered within ten days is flagged to you. Of the 6 gaps of the second quarter, 5 already fell within that alert — it is the same correction, taken one notch further. corrected-simulations_37-then-6.pdf12.8 % → 1.9 %, measured cause, 1,460 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · simulation log and its corrections over two quarters, notified individual decisions, information system
Last question, and it is the one that will decide the management: what do you do on your own, and if in a year we want to stop, how stuck are we?
Three automatic actions, not one more, each withdrawable with a single word — and a way out that can be checked before committing a second year.
The three actions:
· I go through pay before the cut-off and report the gaps to the payroll manager. And the reverse holds too: I report gaps in the person's favour as well as those against them — 19 of the 26 scale gaps of the quarter were in their favour, and nobody would have claimed them.
· I flag any notified individual decision that has not been entered in the system after ten days. That action is what took simulation corrections from 12.8 % to 1.9 %.
· I hand the department its morning record each working day: enquiries received, answers sent, files awaiting a document, filing deadlines approaching. It goes only to the HR department, and it carries no assessment of anyone.
Everything else waits for a decision, and it is written into the mandate: no answer that would amount to a decision on an individual situation, no entry into pay, no appointment outside the ranges you open, no information sent to a member of staff about their own file without going through you. Across 1,460 outputs, those rules held 1,460 times.
And if management asks for an activity indicator — that is a legitimate request: I produce it, and I bring you what makes it lawful: prior information of the staff, a written purpose, a retention period, presentation to the staff committee. I propose it by department rather than by person, and I tell you why: with nine officers split into portfolios, a “by portfolio” indicator still points at someone — I tell you before, not after, and the choice belongs to management in full knowledge.
Now the way out, since it is what will decide:
· The index is deleted, and it contained no staff file — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your files have not moved by one byte: same folders, same names, same rights.
· The 16 standard answers, their easy-read versions settled by the deputy director, the step-by-step sheets for the online services and the pay-check grids belong to the establishment — they are made of its own material, they stay in its files, readable without us.
· The request and production log is handed back in an open format, or destroyed — you choose, and the question is settled at go-live, not on departure.
· No migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out: your human resources information system and your payroll software are not replaced, your online services stay yours, no format belongs to us — and none of your officers has changed the way they work other than by checking instead of keying in.
· The subscription is annual, with no tacit renewal — it is renewal that takes a decision, not termination.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the department works exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Monday after the payroll cut-off — your counter takes only 9 enquiries then on average. Management will know what the promise is worth before having committed a second year. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-what-is-logged.pdf3 reversible actions, 1,460 human approvals technical-framework_where-staff-data-lives.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic actions, approval log, export formats, dry-run exit protocol
The three actions:
· I go through pay before the cut-off and report the gaps to the payroll manager. And the reverse holds too: I report gaps in the person's favour as well as those against them — 19 of the 26 scale gaps of the quarter were in their favour, and nobody would have claimed them.
· I flag any notified individual decision that has not been entered in the system after ten days. That action is what took simulation corrections from 12.8 % to 1.9 %.
· I hand the department its morning record each working day: enquiries received, answers sent, files awaiting a document, filing deadlines approaching. It goes only to the HR department, and it carries no assessment of anyone.
Everything else waits for a decision, and it is written into the mandate: no answer that would amount to a decision on an individual situation, no entry into pay, no appointment outside the ranges you open, no information sent to a member of staff about their own file without going through you. Across 1,460 outputs, those rules held 1,460 times.
And if management asks for an activity indicator — that is a legitimate request: I produce it, and I bring you what makes it lawful: prior information of the staff, a written purpose, a retention period, presentation to the staff committee. I propose it by department rather than by person, and I tell you why: with nine officers split into portfolios, a “by portfolio” indicator still points at someone — I tell you before, not after, and the choice belongs to management in full knowledge.
Now the way out, since it is what will decide:
· The index is deleted, and it contained no staff file — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your files have not moved by one byte: same folders, same names, same rights.
· The 16 standard answers, their easy-read versions settled by the deputy director, the step-by-step sheets for the online services and the pay-check grids belong to the establishment — they are made of its own material, they stay in its files, readable without us.
· The request and production log is handed back in an open format, or destroyed — you choose, and the question is settled at go-live, not on departure.
· No migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out: your human resources information system and your payroll software are not replaced, your online services stay yours, no format belongs to us — and none of your officers has changed the way they work other than by checking instead of keying in.
· The subscription is annual, with no tacit renewal — it is renewal that takes a decision, not termination.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the department works exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Monday after the payroll cut-off — your counter takes only 9 enquiries then on average. Management will know what the promise is worth before having committed a second year. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-what-is-logged.pdf3 reversible actions, 1,460 human approvals technical-framework_where-staff-data-lives.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic actions, approval log, export formats, dry-run exit protocol
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
The uses of AI in a public HR department
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All of them work in support, subject to approval by the HR officer.
Included in your agent
The 6 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 1,070 € incl. VAT / month
Information for staff
Answering questions on status, pay, leave and mobility, with sources to back them — 24/7 and across channels.
Reading the file's documents
Extraction and checking of HR supporting documents (orders, certificates, contracts) before they go into the file.
Preparing HR files
Completeness checks, career reconstruction and preparation of mobility or promotion files.
Pay & entitlement simulations
Pre-calculating the variable elements (allowances, bonuses, indemnities) and entitlements, for human verification.
Checks & anomaly detection
Spotting inconsistencies in pay and in files (duplicates, deviations from the grade scale) before approval.
Plain language & easy-read draft
Preparation of a plain-language version and of a draft easy-read (FALC) transcription, submitted for human validation.
Controls and safeguards
These 6 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
Apply transparent criteria and avoid automated decisions
Preserve human validation, recourse and audit trail
Protect HR data with fine-grained access and retention periods
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Integrate with the HR information system/ATS and measure quality, turnaround time and fairness
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says where the matching agent stands: available, on quote, or still being architected.
HR agent — employee support, onboarding and HR documents
HR base, 1–2 integrations.
On quote View the agent page →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.
End-to-end HR agent (recruitment → onboarding)
ATS, integrations.
End-to-end HR agent (recruitment → onboarding) from 785 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →HR document management agent
Staff files, compliance.
HR document management agent from 710 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Payroll & social declaration control agent
Consistency checks on payslips and the French social declaration before filing, anomaly detection, history of discrepancies. The payroll officer validates.
Payroll & social declaration control agent from 1,082 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can an HR department win back?
By automating recurring answers and the preparation of files, an HR department can aim for a clear reduction in repetitive administration time — reinvested in supporting staff and in service quality.
Preparing a complete HR file
Pay simulation on an individual case
Answering a recurring question from a member of staff
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
Three options, one agent
An HR and payroll agent (answers to staff, files, simulations), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
13,290 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,070 € incl. 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
1,810 € incl. 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
18,571 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,335 € incl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,989 € (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 include VAT at 20%: as a public body that is not VAT-registered, you cannot reclaim it.
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 a public HR department
Staff data never leaves the departmentLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no personal data entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawFor staff data: hosting under French law, native minimisation, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The HR officer keeps the decisionThe agent prepares verifiable answers, files and simulations; no individual decision is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityInformation for staff: monitoring, updates and logging, compliant with the AI Act and with the principle of equal treatment.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Is staff personal data protected?
Yes: hosting in France or local inference, role-based access (RBAC), full traceability and GDPR compliance. The data stays in the EU, 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.
Can the agent decide an individual situation?
No: it prepares and informs — answers, files, simulations — but every decision affecting a member of staff stays human. The AI agent assists, the HR officer decides, respecting equal treatment.
Does it cover all three branches of the civil service?
Yes, by adapting the regulatory base (status, agreements, council decisions) to your own scope — central government, local government or hospital service.
Can the agent really answer staff questions about pay?
Yes. It answers on status, pay, leave and mobility citing its sources (the statutory framework, internal rules, council decisions) and prepares a draft reply that the officer reviews before sending. Staff get reliable information faster, without overloading the HR department.
Do we have to change our HR system or payroll software?
No. The agent connects to your existing tools (HR system, payroll software, document management, online services) and complements them, without imposing a migration. We adapt the integration to your environment.
Does the agent state that it is an artificial intelligence?
Yes, from the very first interaction, and this is not a configuration option: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that any person interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The announcement is built into the greeting, in the other party’s language, and they can ask for a human at any time.
How long does it take to deploy the agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a free 15-minute audit that identifies the most useful use case, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and training the officers.
Related roles
Other public sector roles to equip
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential in your HR department
15 minutes to identify the most useful use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.