● Public sector — Civil status registrar
AI agent for the civil status registrar
An assistant that prepares the records, adds the marginal notes and handles requests for copies — the registrar checks and signs every record. Hosted in France, on a resource dedicated to and isolated for each town, civil status data stays under French law. The AI agent assists, the registrar decides.
Hosted in France
Civil status data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Civil status assistant · hosted in France
Prepare the draft marriage record for file no. 2026-114, ceremony on Saturday at 11am.
Draft record ready. Identities, addresses and witnesses taken from the file, publication of the banns verified (the ten-day period observed), no interview required on the basis of the file, in line with your templates.
Still to complete: the mention of the marriage contract if the notary's certificate is produced before the ceremony — for the registrar to check and sign.
⛓ Source · the marriage file + your record templates
Still to complete: the mention of the marriage contract if the notary's certificate is produced before the ceremony — for the registrar to check and sign.
⛓ Source · the marriage file + your record templates
A notary's office is asking for a full copy of a 1998 birth record.
Request checked. The notary establishes their standing: the full copy may be issued. Record located in the 1998 register, copy prepared with the marginal notes up to date, covering letter drafted.
Nothing goes out without your authorisation.
✎ Action · copy prepared — the registrar checks and signs
Nothing goes out without your authorisation.
✎ Action · copy prepared — the registrar checks and signs
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 registrar decidesThe AI agent assists, it never signs alone
✦ In brief
In the civil status department, a Blue Lemon Agent agent assists the registrar with the repetitive tasks — draft birth, marriage and death records, marginal notes, full copies and extracts, replies to the public — and checks the consistency of the documents. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France on a resource dedicated to and isolated for each town: the registers and the civil status data are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The registrar checks and signs every record; the time won back goes to welcoming families. A light deployment, available by direct award below the public procurement thresholds. Live within a few weeks. Your public-sector staff write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your users reach it on WhatsApp Business, the website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. Reaching the administration from the tool people already have means less non-take-up of rights and equal access to the service. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
7
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 civil status departments — and why they hesitate
Records to draw up without error, marginal notes to add within the deadlines, requests for copies piling up: civil status demands absolute rigour, on the most identifying data there is — births, marriages, deaths, parentage.
! The issue
The registrar is caught between families and professionals (notaries, lawyers, public bodies) who expect records that are quick and beyond reproach, and a demanding formality where every error can have lasting legal consequences. Yet most consumer AI tools would amount to entrusting births, marriages, deaths and parentage to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
For civil status, AI is only of interest if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, signature reserved to the registrar: the time saved on preparing records is never paid for in lost confidentiality, nor in a break in the continuity of the service. The aim is not to replace the registrar, but to give them back time for families.
The decisive point
Protecting civil status data: sovereignty & compliance
A civil status department handles the most identifying data of the town's residents. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, town by town.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the town hall: no data leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — the civil status data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Civil status data: architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per council
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your town, guaranteeing the continuity of the public service.
Encryption & controlled 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 act signed automatically; 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, 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 bodyTown of Beaumont-la-Rivière — a council of 18,400 residents, with a maternity unit on its territory
- Sector
- Urban council — civil registration, cemeteries and elections service; one maternity unit on its territory; counter open 35 hours a week
- Headcount
- 210 staff, 5 of them in the civil registration service: one service manager and four case officers; the mayor and three deputy mayors are registrars
- Public served
- 18,400 residents — and far beyond: the maternity unit sees 1,240 children born a year, 890 of them to residents of other towns
- Volume
- 1,736 records drawn up a year (1,240 births, 186 marriages, 214 deaths, 96 acknowledgements of parentage), 128 civil partnerships registered, 3,100 marginal annotations, 14,800 requests for copies and abstracts, 18,300 information enquiries
- Tools in place
- Population and civil registration software, registers digitised since 1905 — 214,000 records —, an online request form and email; the agent plugs into them read-only, nothing is replaced and nothing is migrated
- Who decides
- The mayor and the deputy mayors sign the records; the civil registration service manager signs off every draft before signature; nothing leaves the service without a sign-off
- Room for improvement
- 1,460 marginal annotations waiting, entered in 21 days on average; a copy issued in 8 days; 38 % of calls unanswered; and 4,800 of the 214,000 digitised records are still hunted for by hand
In Beaumont-la-Rivière, five staff run the civil registration of a territory that produces far more records than its population would suggest: the maternity unit makes the town the place of birth of 890 children from other towns every year. Formality there is absolute, and that is exactly what a document-by-document match secures: a forename carried onto a record follows a person for life, and it now reaches the sign-off with the document that establishes it alongside. The agent runs on local inference on a machine at the town hall, reads the registers and the files read-only, and puts forward every draft with the document that establishes it and the place where that document says so. The exchanges that follow cover one year, from clearing the annotation backlog to the review presented to the chief executive's office.
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.
Civil status assistant · hosted in France
I indexed your digitised registers over the weekend — 214,000 records since 1905 — and two figures come out of it that your service was already carrying without ever having had the time to set them side by side.
Indexing means reading the content of every record so that it can be found by what it says — a name, a date, a parentage — and not by register number and year. Your registers stay exactly what they are: nothing is copied, nothing is moved, no record is altered.
First figure, the one that decides: 1,460 marginal annotations are waiting to be entered, 318 of them for more than six months. A marginal annotation is the entry made in the margin of a record to flag a later event — marriage, divorce, death — so that the record always states the current situation. An annotation still waiting shows up at the counter, the day a family asks for a copy — and the 318 oldest are already matched, drafted and ready to sign off.
Second figure: 4,800 of your 214,000 digitised records are still hunted for by hand — 2.2 %. They were digitised as plain images. I ran 1,200 of them through overnight as a trial: 1,140 are now found by what they say, and the other 3,600 follow at the same pace as soon as you tell me to.
What those three areas weigh today, and what they will weigh tomorrow:
· Preparing a draft record takes 60 % of the time a record needs — 15 minutes out of the 25 a record demands, from file to sign-off.
· Handling a request for a copy or an abstract: 40 %, that is 4 minutes out of 10.
· A week's marginal annotations: the whole of the time given to them, that is 5 hours.
What I do with those three, and it is already in place: I prepare them, every element accompanied by the document that establishes it and the place where that document says so, and your service keeps what it alone can do — check and sign off. Preparation drops to 10 %, 10 % and 20 %: 2 minutes 30 seconds, 1 minute, 1 hour a week.
And the backlog of 1,460 annotations, I bring you sorted rather than merely stated: the 318 oldest are matched to their record, drafted in your service's form and set out as a comparison list. At 45 sign-offs a day, they are behind you in seven working days — tell me to start with them and Monday's list is ready tonight. register-status_214000-records-indexed.pdf214,000 records findable, 318 annotations ready for sign-off
⛓ Sourced · registers digitised since 1905, annotation notices received and awaiting entry, the service's log
Indexing means reading the content of every record so that it can be found by what it says — a name, a date, a parentage — and not by register number and year. Your registers stay exactly what they are: nothing is copied, nothing is moved, no record is altered.
First figure, the one that decides: 1,460 marginal annotations are waiting to be entered, 318 of them for more than six months. A marginal annotation is the entry made in the margin of a record to flag a later event — marriage, divorce, death — so that the record always states the current situation. An annotation still waiting shows up at the counter, the day a family asks for a copy — and the 318 oldest are already matched, drafted and ready to sign off.
Second figure: 4,800 of your 214,000 digitised records are still hunted for by hand — 2.2 %. They were digitised as plain images. I ran 1,200 of them through overnight as a trial: 1,140 are now found by what they say, and the other 3,600 follow at the same pace as soon as you tell me to.
What those three areas weigh today, and what they will weigh tomorrow:
· Preparing a draft record takes 60 % of the time a record needs — 15 minutes out of the 25 a record demands, from file to sign-off.
· Handling a request for a copy or an abstract: 40 %, that is 4 minutes out of 10.
· A week's marginal annotations: the whole of the time given to them, that is 5 hours.
What I do with those three, and it is already in place: I prepare them, every element accompanied by the document that establishes it and the place where that document says so, and your service keeps what it alone can do — check and sign off. Preparation drops to 10 %, 10 % and 20 %: 2 minutes 30 seconds, 1 minute, 1 hour a week.
And the backlog of 1,460 annotations, I bring you sorted rather than merely stated: the 318 oldest are matched to their record, drafted in your service's form and set out as a comparison list. At 45 sign-offs a day, they are behind you in seven working days — tell me to start with them and Monday's list is ready tonight. register-status_214000-records-indexed.pdf214,000 records findable, 318 annotations ready for sign-off
⛓ Sourced · registers digitised since 1905, annotation notices received and awaiting entry, the service's log
We know about the annotation backlog. What we do not know is where to take hold of it without bringing the rest of the service to a halt.
By the 318 oldest, and without halting anything at all: the backlog clears in seven weeks at one hour of sign-off a day.
What I have done with the stock, by sorting it rather than stacking it:
· 1,010 marriage and divorce annotations — the simplest to match up: the notice received carries the same identities as the record it targets. All 1,010 are drafted and awaiting sign-off.
· 200 death annotations, drafted the same way.
· 250 annotations of acknowledgement of parentage, or change of surname or forename — these touch parentage and identity: I present them apart, one at a time, the notice and the record side by side.
The arithmetic, which you can redo: 1,460 annotations prepared in batches, signed off at 45 a day — that is what your service manager sustained through the trial week. Seven weeks, and the stock is at zero, without an hour of extra help and without touching the current flow, which I prepare in parallel.
What reaches your sign-off reaches it finished: the match made, the notice on one side, the record on the other, the discrepancies made plain, the annotation already drafted in your service's form. The sign-off carries 45 annotations into the register in one signature — and it is what gives the annotation the same force as the record.
What I propose next: that the current flow be prepared on the day the notice arrives, rather than whenever there is time for it. The time to enter an annotation goes from 21 days to 4 — and a family asking for a copy receives a record that states today's situation. The setting is ready: it takes effect on tomorrow morning's first notice. annotation-backlog_1460-sorted.pdf318 more than six months old, seven working days of sign-off to clear them
⛓ Sourced · 1,460 annotation notices sorted by type and by age, the trial sign-off week, the log of turnaround times
What I have done with the stock, by sorting it rather than stacking it:
· 1,010 marriage and divorce annotations — the simplest to match up: the notice received carries the same identities as the record it targets. All 1,010 are drafted and awaiting sign-off.
· 200 death annotations, drafted the same way.
· 250 annotations of acknowledgement of parentage, or change of surname or forename — these touch parentage and identity: I present them apart, one at a time, the notice and the record side by side.
The arithmetic, which you can redo: 1,460 annotations prepared in batches, signed off at 45 a day — that is what your service manager sustained through the trial week. Seven weeks, and the stock is at zero, without an hour of extra help and without touching the current flow, which I prepare in parallel.
What reaches your sign-off reaches it finished: the match made, the notice on one side, the record on the other, the discrepancies made plain, the annotation already drafted in your service's form. The sign-off carries 45 annotations into the register in one signature — and it is what gives the annotation the same force as the record.
What I propose next: that the current flow be prepared on the day the notice arrives, rather than whenever there is time for it. The time to enter an annotation goes from 21 days to 4 — and a family asking for a copy receives a record that states today's situation. The setting is ready: it takes effect on tomorrow morning's first notice. annotation-backlog_1460-sorted.pdf318 more than six months old, seven working days of sign-off to clear them
⛓ Sourced · 1,460 annotation notices sorted by type and by age, the trial sign-off week, the log of turnaround times
All of this assumes you read our registers and our files. That is the most identifying data we hold. Where does it go?
It stays with you. I run on local inference on a machine at the town hall, and nothing I read leaves the council's network.
Local inference means the model computes on your own machine: the text of a birth record or of a marriage file crosses zero outside networks to be processed. If the council chooses not to administer a machine of its own, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Beaumont-la-Rivière — no pooling with any other council.
What that changes, point by point:
· Your registers train zero models, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only, and the technical account I read through is stripped of any right to write into the civil registration software — which is sturdier than a promise, because it can be checked in the configuration.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the job: a front-desk officer opens copy requests, not acknowledgement-of-parentage files; a cemeteries officer opens concessions, not birth records. An access right is withdrawn on a word, and the withdrawal takes effect within the minute.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· A complete audit log: who asked for what, when, which record was consulted and what the system produced.
And what gives your records their legal force: they are drawn up and signed by a registrar who answers for them before the public — that is what makes them authentic and binding on everyone. What I bring to each of those acts is the work already done: a draft record built with its document alongside, an annotation drafted and matched, a copy prepared with its annotations up to date.
And on correction, a figure the indexing turned up: 62 records in your registers carry a divergence with another record in the same holdings — a forename, a date, a parentage. All 62 files are built: the two records side by side, the chronology of the documents, the exact place of the divergence and the draft referral to the competent authority. The decision to correct belongs to that authority — and I hand it over ready, instead of leaving it to be assembled.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the sheet your data protection officer will ask for — data processed, retention periods, who accesses what, where it is hosted. On civil registration that is the first question you will be asked, and it is written before anyone asks it. technical-framework_where-your-registers-live.pdfLocal inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, rights of the technical account, 62 correction files built
Local inference means the model computes on your own machine: the text of a birth record or of a marriage file crosses zero outside networks to be processed. If the council chooses not to administer a machine of its own, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Beaumont-la-Rivière — no pooling with any other council.
What that changes, point by point:
· Your registers train zero models, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only, and the technical account I read through is stripped of any right to write into the civil registration software — which is sturdier than a promise, because it can be checked in the configuration.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the job: a front-desk officer opens copy requests, not acknowledgement-of-parentage files; a cemeteries officer opens concessions, not birth records. An access right is withdrawn on a word, and the withdrawal takes effect within the minute.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· A complete audit log: who asked for what, when, which record was consulted and what the system produced.
And what gives your records their legal force: they are drawn up and signed by a registrar who answers for them before the public — that is what makes them authentic and binding on everyone. What I bring to each of those acts is the work already done: a draft record built with its document alongside, an annotation drafted and matched, a copy prepared with its annotations up to date.
And on correction, a figure the indexing turned up: 62 records in your registers carry a divergence with another record in the same holdings — a forename, a date, a parentage. All 62 files are built: the two records side by side, the chronology of the documents, the exact place of the divergence and the draft referral to the competent authority. The decision to correct belongs to that authority — and I hand it over ready, instead of leaving it to be assembled.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the sheet your data protection officer will ask for — data processed, retention periods, who accesses what, where it is hosted. On civil registration that is the first question you will be asked, and it is written before anyone asks it. technical-framework_where-your-registers-live.pdfLocal inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, rights of the technical account, 62 correction files built
Take marriage file no. 2026-114, ceremony on Saturday at 11 a.m. Prepare the draft record.
The draft is ready, and it reads in two columns: on the left what the record will say, on the right the document in the file that establishes it and the place where that document says so.
What is carried over, and from where:
· Identities and dates of birth of the couple — copies of birth records in the file, issued 41 and 44 days ago.
· Addresses — proofs in the file, with their dates.
· Witnesses — identity documents in the file; four witnesses, two for each spouse.
· Publication of the banns — the public posting of the intended marriage at the town hall, which gives anyone who knows of an impediment the time to say so — posted for 14 days, the posting record attached to the file. The period is met.
· Form of the record — your council's template, drawn from the general instruction on civil registration, identical.
The open point, and I put it at the top rather than in a footnote: the annotation of the marriage contract. The notary's certificate is still to come in. I have built both versions of the record — with the annotation, without it — and the chaser email to the notary's practice is written: it goes out within the hour if you decide so, which leaves the certificate three days to arrive.
The judgement that is yours, and I hand it to you ready: the hearing of the couple. It belongs to the registrar, and that is what makes it reasoned and open to challenge. I hand it back to you on one page: how far the two spouses' declarations agree, how old the documents are, the observations your front-desk officer recorded at lodging, and the three points on which this file calls for a precise question. Both follow-ups are built: the summons to the hearing if you decide to hear them, the final draft record if you decide otherwise. You settle it on one page, in two minutes, instead of reopening the file.
The time this moves: preparing a draft record goes from 60 % to 10 % of the time a record takes — from 15 minutes to 2 minutes 30 seconds. Across 1,736 records a year, that is 362 hours going back to welcoming families and checking files.
What I propose for this weekend: Saturday's three other marriages are built in the same form — they are waiting for your reading, and each one's banns posting record is attached. draft-marriage-record_file-2026-114.pdfTwo columns: what the record says, the document that establishes it
⛓ Sourced · marriage file no. 2026-114, the banns posting record, the council's record templates, observations from lodging
What is carried over, and from where:
· Identities and dates of birth of the couple — copies of birth records in the file, issued 41 and 44 days ago.
· Addresses — proofs in the file, with their dates.
· Witnesses — identity documents in the file; four witnesses, two for each spouse.
· Publication of the banns — the public posting of the intended marriage at the town hall, which gives anyone who knows of an impediment the time to say so — posted for 14 days, the posting record attached to the file. The period is met.
· Form of the record — your council's template, drawn from the general instruction on civil registration, identical.
The open point, and I put it at the top rather than in a footnote: the annotation of the marriage contract. The notary's certificate is still to come in. I have built both versions of the record — with the annotation, without it — and the chaser email to the notary's practice is written: it goes out within the hour if you decide so, which leaves the certificate three days to arrive.
The judgement that is yours, and I hand it to you ready: the hearing of the couple. It belongs to the registrar, and that is what makes it reasoned and open to challenge. I hand it back to you on one page: how far the two spouses' declarations agree, how old the documents are, the observations your front-desk officer recorded at lodging, and the three points on which this file calls for a precise question. Both follow-ups are built: the summons to the hearing if you decide to hear them, the final draft record if you decide otherwise. You settle it on one page, in two minutes, instead of reopening the file.
The time this moves: preparing a draft record goes from 60 % to 10 % of the time a record takes — from 15 minutes to 2 minutes 30 seconds. Across 1,736 records a year, that is 362 hours going back to welcoming families and checking files.
What I propose for this weekend: Saturday's three other marriages are built in the same form — they are waiting for your reading, and each one's banns posting record is attached. draft-marriage-record_file-2026-114.pdfTwo columns: what the record says, the document that establishes it
⛓ Sourced · marriage file no. 2026-114, the banns posting record, the council's record templates, observations from lodging
Files often arrive incomplete or inconsistent, and we only notice when it is time to draw up the record. That is when it gets tense.
The check happens when the file is lodged, not the day before the ceremony — and across the 186 files this year it surfaced 43 discrepancies.
What I compare, document by document:
· The identities against one another — the spelling of surnames and forenames on the birth record, on the identity document and on the form. That is the largest discrepancy by number: 27 of the 43. A compound forename written with a hyphen on one document and without on the other is anything but a detail in a civil status record.
· The dates — validity of the birth-record copies produced, dates of the proofs of address.
· Completeness — documents missing against your lodging list, the one your service hands to the future spouses.
· And the discrepancies between the file and your registers, when one of the couple was born in the town: 3 cases this year, one of them a parentage completed by a later acknowledgement that the file passed over in silence.
What I hand over with every discrepancy, and it is what saves the time: the two documents side by side, the exact place where they diverge, and the full chronology — which was established first, which follows from the other. On 39 of the 43, that chronology is enough to see where the error comes from, and the letter to the family is written straight away. The decision stays with the registrar — and I hand it over in three minutes, the file complete and reasoned, because it is the decision that is explained to the family and stays open to challenge before them — that is what makes it strong.
The 4 remaining discrepancies bear on the register itself: the correction file is built, documents and chronology included, and it goes to the competent authority as soon as you sign.
What it changes for the family, and this is the real gain: a discrepancy caught at lodging is settled in three weeks without stress. The same discrepancy caught the day before the wedding means a ceremony pushed back. Last year that happened twice; this year, none.
What I propose next: that the same comparison apply to this year's 96 acknowledgements of parentage. Of the first six I reran as a blind test, two carried a difference of spelling between the parent's document and the child's birth record — exactly the kind of discrepancy that comes to light fifteen years later, when enrolling in a school abroad. Tell me yes and all 96 are reviewed within a fortnight. document-checks_43-discrepancies-across-186-files.pdf27 spelling discrepancies, 3 with the registers, 39 explained by the chronology
⛓ Sourced · the year's 186 marriage files, the service's lodging list, the town's registers, the chronology of the documents
What I compare, document by document:
· The identities against one another — the spelling of surnames and forenames on the birth record, on the identity document and on the form. That is the largest discrepancy by number: 27 of the 43. A compound forename written with a hyphen on one document and without on the other is anything but a detail in a civil status record.
· The dates — validity of the birth-record copies produced, dates of the proofs of address.
· Completeness — documents missing against your lodging list, the one your service hands to the future spouses.
· And the discrepancies between the file and your registers, when one of the couple was born in the town: 3 cases this year, one of them a parentage completed by a later acknowledgement that the file passed over in silence.
What I hand over with every discrepancy, and it is what saves the time: the two documents side by side, the exact place where they diverge, and the full chronology — which was established first, which follows from the other. On 39 of the 43, that chronology is enough to see where the error comes from, and the letter to the family is written straight away. The decision stays with the registrar — and I hand it over in three minutes, the file complete and reasoned, because it is the decision that is explained to the family and stays open to challenge before them — that is what makes it strong.
The 4 remaining discrepancies bear on the register itself: the correction file is built, documents and chronology included, and it goes to the competent authority as soon as you sign.
What it changes for the family, and this is the real gain: a discrepancy caught at lodging is settled in three weeks without stress. The same discrepancy caught the day before the wedding means a ceremony pushed back. Last year that happened twice; this year, none.
What I propose next: that the same comparison apply to this year's 96 acknowledgements of parentage. Of the first six I reran as a blind test, two carried a difference of spelling between the parent's document and the child's birth record — exactly the kind of discrepancy that comes to light fifteen years later, when enrolling in a school abroad. Tell me yes and all 96 are reviewed within a fortnight. document-checks_43-discrepancies-across-186-files.pdf27 spelling discrepancies, 3 with the registers, 39 explained by the chronology
⛓ Sourced · the year's 186 marriage files, the service's lodging list, the town's registers, the chronology of the documents
And what about births and deaths? That is where the volume is, and with a death the family is standing right in front of us.
That is where the volume is — 1,454 of the 1,736 records — and it is what decides whether your staff have the time to talk to families.
On births, 1,240 a year of which 890 from other towns:
· The draft record is prepared as soon as the declaration arrives, every element with the document that establishes it.
· I flag the points that call for your judgement — a pre-birth acknowledgement to attach, a joint declaration on the choice of surname in the file, a forename whose spelling differs between the declaration and the parent's document.
· And the annotation notices to the parents' towns of birth are written, addressed and ready to go: 890 times a year, the record you draw up calls for a letter to another town hall — it is the letter that gets forgotten on a busy day, and it now goes out the same day.
On deaths, 214 a year, and this is the one place where I talk to you about human time rather than working time:
· The draft record is ready while the officer is receiving the family, from the certificate and the documents produced.
· The documents the family will have to ask for are listed at the same time — copies of the death record for the bank, the employer, the various bodies — with the number usually needed. The family leaves with the complete list, and one visit is enough.
· And the annotation notice goes out to the town of birth, which updates the deceased's birth record without the family having to see to it.
What makes a record exist, and it is your service's strength: the registrar's signature. A civil status record is an authentic instrument: it carries proof and binds everyone because a registrar drew it up and signed it in that capacity, and answers for it. That act is what makes the record binding, and it is what all the preparation serves. What reaches it reaches it finished: from 15 minutes of production to 2 minutes 30 seconds of checking, across 1,454 birth and death records.
What I propose: that receiving bereaved families now has the fifteen minutes that preparation used to take. That is the gain that counts most: the one moment when your service receives a bereaved family now lasts fifteen minutes longer. The rule can apply from Monday. draft-records_births-and-deaths.pdf1,454 drafts built, 890 annotation notices written and ready to go
⛓ Sourced · the year's birth and death declarations, 890 annotation notices drafted, the council's record templates
On births, 1,240 a year of which 890 from other towns:
· The draft record is prepared as soon as the declaration arrives, every element with the document that establishes it.
· I flag the points that call for your judgement — a pre-birth acknowledgement to attach, a joint declaration on the choice of surname in the file, a forename whose spelling differs between the declaration and the parent's document.
· And the annotation notices to the parents' towns of birth are written, addressed and ready to go: 890 times a year, the record you draw up calls for a letter to another town hall — it is the letter that gets forgotten on a busy day, and it now goes out the same day.
On deaths, 214 a year, and this is the one place where I talk to you about human time rather than working time:
· The draft record is ready while the officer is receiving the family, from the certificate and the documents produced.
· The documents the family will have to ask for are listed at the same time — copies of the death record for the bank, the employer, the various bodies — with the number usually needed. The family leaves with the complete list, and one visit is enough.
· And the annotation notice goes out to the town of birth, which updates the deceased's birth record without the family having to see to it.
What makes a record exist, and it is your service's strength: the registrar's signature. A civil status record is an authentic instrument: it carries proof and binds everyone because a registrar drew it up and signed it in that capacity, and answers for it. That act is what makes the record binding, and it is what all the preparation serves. What reaches it reaches it finished: from 15 minutes of production to 2 minutes 30 seconds of checking, across 1,454 birth and death records.
What I propose: that receiving bereaved families now has the fifteen minutes that preparation used to take. That is the gain that counts most: the one moment when your service receives a bereaved family now lasts fifteen minutes longer. The rule can apply from Monday. draft-records_births-and-deaths.pdf1,454 drafts built, 890 annotation notices written and ready to go
⛓ Sourced · the year's birth and death declarations, 890 annotation notices drafted, the council's record templates
We receive 3,100 of them a year. In practice, what do you do with an annotation notice that lands in the service's inbox, and at what point does my manager step in?
I match it against the record it targets, I make the discrepancies plain, and I hand you a side-by-side check — verifiable line by line, rather than a text to be taken on trust.
The workflow, from the day it arrives to the sign-off:
· I read the notice — marriage, divorce, death, acknowledgement of parentage, change of surname or forename — and I identify the record it targets in your registers, by the identities and the date of birth.
· I set the notice and the record side by side, with the elements that match in green and the ones that diverge made plain.
· I draft the annotation in your service's form, from your templates.
· You sign off, and the entry follows your sign-off within the minute.
The four cases I put to you on their own, with the reason and the document as an image:
· The record targeted calls for a doubt to be lifted — two records carry identities that are too close. I give you both, with what separates them.
· The notice diverges from the record on a surname, a forename or a date. The letter to the issuing town hall is written and attached.
· The record already carries an anomaly spotted during indexing. The correction file is built alongside.
· The source calls for a legible copy — handwritten notice, faint fax, poor-quality scan. I pass you the image, the character highlighted, and the request for a legible copy already drafted — because a character carried onto a record must have been read, never inferred.
The result measured on the current flow: the time to enter an annotation goes from 21 days to 4, and a week's annotations go from 5 hours to 1 — from the whole of the time given to them down to 20 %.
What that changes for a family, and it is the only argument worth making: a copy asked for on the 10th states what happened on the 6th, and not what was true three weeks earlier.
What I propose: that the day's batch be put to you at 4 p.m., as a comparison list — 60 annotations are then signed off in one go, and the next day's stock starts again from zero. annotation-workflow_from-receipt-to-sign-off.pdf4 cases put forward on their own with their letter, 21 days brought down to 4
⛓ Sourced · annotation notices received over three months, digitised registers, the service's annotation templates, requests for legible copies
The workflow, from the day it arrives to the sign-off:
· I read the notice — marriage, divorce, death, acknowledgement of parentage, change of surname or forename — and I identify the record it targets in your registers, by the identities and the date of birth.
· I set the notice and the record side by side, with the elements that match in green and the ones that diverge made plain.
· I draft the annotation in your service's form, from your templates.
· You sign off, and the entry follows your sign-off within the minute.
The four cases I put to you on their own, with the reason and the document as an image:
· The record targeted calls for a doubt to be lifted — two records carry identities that are too close. I give you both, with what separates them.
· The notice diverges from the record on a surname, a forename or a date. The letter to the issuing town hall is written and attached.
· The record already carries an anomaly spotted during indexing. The correction file is built alongside.
· The source calls for a legible copy — handwritten notice, faint fax, poor-quality scan. I pass you the image, the character highlighted, and the request for a legible copy already drafted — because a character carried onto a record must have been read, never inferred.
The result measured on the current flow: the time to enter an annotation goes from 21 days to 4, and a week's annotations go from 5 hours to 1 — from the whole of the time given to them down to 20 %.
What that changes for a family, and it is the only argument worth making: a copy asked for on the 10th states what happened on the 6th, and not what was true three weeks earlier.
What I propose: that the day's batch be put to you at 4 p.m., as a comparison list — 60 annotations are then signed off in one go, and the next day's stock starts again from zero. annotation-workflow_from-receipt-to-sign-off.pdf4 cases put forward on their own with their letter, 21 days brought down to 4
⛓ Sourced · annotation notices received over three months, digitised registers, the service's annotation templates, requests for legible copies
My service manager signs off sixty annotations a week, one after another. That is what takes the time, not the preparation.
Then let us change the form of the check, not its existence — and for that I propose a written mandate, capped, dated and withdrawable on a word. I have already drafted the whole thing.
What the mandate changes, and it is the only thing it changes: your manager signs off a comparison list at the end of the day, rather than sixty items one after another. She still signs. An annotation enters the register after her sign-off: it is the way I am wired in, and it is what makes this mandate safe to sign.
What the mandate would say, and it fits in five lines:
· Exact scope: marriage, divorce and death annotations received electronically, and nothing else. Acknowledgements of parentage and changes of surname or forename stay signed off one item at a time — those are the ones that touch parentage and identity.
· Four cumulative conditions to enter the list: record identified with certainty, no divergence between the notice and the record, no anomaly already spotted on the record, source perfectly legible. One condition missing, and the annotation leaves the list and comes back on its own.
· Form of the sign-off: a comparison list, each line with the notice and the record side by side, and a one-click link to the document.
· Duration: reviewed after three months, with the record of the errors caught at sign-off. Without an explicit decision at the review, we go back to item-by-item sign-off — it is renewal that needs a signature, not going back.
· Withdrawal: a word from your manager, and batch sign-off stops within the minute.
What it brings in, in figures: signing off 60 annotations goes from 4 hours to 50 minutes a week, and the backlog of 1,460 clears in seven weeks instead of six months.
What I advise against, and I put a figure on it: bringing acknowledgements of parentage and changes of forename into the list. They are 250 annotations out of 1,460 — 17 % of the stock — and they are the ones that carry most of the risk on parentage. The gain would be twelve minutes a week.
What I propose instead for those 250: the same comparison form, presented one at a time — sign-off goes from 4 minutes to 1 minute 30 seconds per annotation, without a single check disappearing. The mandate is in your inbox: it takes effect the minute your manager signs it. batch-sign-off-mandate_3-types-capped.pdf4 cumulative conditions, review at 3 months, immediate withdrawal
✎ Framework · draft batch sign-off mandate, record of the sign-offs over the trial week, breakdown of the 1,460 pending annotations
What the mandate changes, and it is the only thing it changes: your manager signs off a comparison list at the end of the day, rather than sixty items one after another. She still signs. An annotation enters the register after her sign-off: it is the way I am wired in, and it is what makes this mandate safe to sign.
What the mandate would say, and it fits in five lines:
· Exact scope: marriage, divorce and death annotations received electronically, and nothing else. Acknowledgements of parentage and changes of surname or forename stay signed off one item at a time — those are the ones that touch parentage and identity.
· Four cumulative conditions to enter the list: record identified with certainty, no divergence between the notice and the record, no anomaly already spotted on the record, source perfectly legible. One condition missing, and the annotation leaves the list and comes back on its own.
· Form of the sign-off: a comparison list, each line with the notice and the record side by side, and a one-click link to the document.
· Duration: reviewed after three months, with the record of the errors caught at sign-off. Without an explicit decision at the review, we go back to item-by-item sign-off — it is renewal that needs a signature, not going back.
· Withdrawal: a word from your manager, and batch sign-off stops within the minute.
What it brings in, in figures: signing off 60 annotations goes from 4 hours to 50 minutes a week, and the backlog of 1,460 clears in seven weeks instead of six months.
What I advise against, and I put a figure on it: bringing acknowledgements of parentage and changes of forename into the list. They are 250 annotations out of 1,460 — 17 % of the stock — and they are the ones that carry most of the risk on parentage. The gain would be twelve minutes a week.
What I propose instead for those 250: the same comparison form, presented one at a time — sign-off goes from 4 minutes to 1 minute 30 seconds per annotation, without a single check disappearing. The mandate is in your inbox: it takes effect the minute your manager signs it. batch-sign-off-mandate_3-types-capped.pdf4 cumulative conditions, review at 3 months, immediate withdrawal
✎ Framework · draft batch sign-off mandate, record of the sign-offs over the trial week, breakdown of the 1,460 pending annotations
And your own errors? In civil registration, what is written stays — I want to know what your check catches, and how much of it.
I have made some, I count them, and I publish them to you: of the 3,100 annotations prepared in the first year, 47 carried a transcription error — 1.5 %. Every one was stopped at sign-off, and zero were entered. That is the figure that does not flatter me, and you are better off having it from me.
The real cause, measured and not supposed: 41 of the 47 came from handwritten notices, faint faxes or poor-quality scans — I was reading one character for another. The other 6 concerned old records in a cramped hand — and those are the ones the improvement of the old holdings made legible. Not one came from a notice received electronically and legible.
What I did about it, and it is measured: any source whose reading would call for an assumption leaves the workflow and comes back to you on its own, with the image of the document and the character highlighted. I carry over what I read, and nothing else — a guessed value is indistinguishable from a read one, and on a civil status record it follows a person for life.
The following year: 6 transcription errors out of 3,240 annotations prepared — 0.2 %. And those 6 were likewise stopped at sign-off.
What I want you to take from the figure, rather than the figure itself: 47 errors prepared, 0 error entered. That is exactly what your manager's sign-off is for, and it is why preparation can go fast while the check itself stays whole.
What I propose next: that I improve the legibility of the 4,800 records digitised as images, overnight, without touching the originals. Of the first 1,200, 1,140 became findable by a search — and the remaining 3,600 follow at 1,200 a quarter, if you tell me to carry on. transcription-errors_47-then-6.pdf1.5 % → 0.2 %, and 0 error entered over two years
⛓ Sourced · log of the annotations prepared and of their corrections over two years, breakdown of the sources, legibility record
The real cause, measured and not supposed: 41 of the 47 came from handwritten notices, faint faxes or poor-quality scans — I was reading one character for another. The other 6 concerned old records in a cramped hand — and those are the ones the improvement of the old holdings made legible. Not one came from a notice received electronically and legible.
What I did about it, and it is measured: any source whose reading would call for an assumption leaves the workflow and comes back to you on its own, with the image of the document and the character highlighted. I carry over what I read, and nothing else — a guessed value is indistinguishable from a read one, and on a civil status record it follows a person for life.
The following year: 6 transcription errors out of 3,240 annotations prepared — 0.2 %. And those 6 were likewise stopped at sign-off.
What I want you to take from the figure, rather than the figure itself: 47 errors prepared, 0 error entered. That is exactly what your manager's sign-off is for, and it is why preparation can go fast while the check itself stays whole.
What I propose next: that I improve the legibility of the 4,800 records digitised as images, overnight, without touching the originals. Of the first 1,200, 1,140 became findable by a search — and the remaining 3,600 follow at 1,200 a quarter, if you tell me to carry on. transcription-errors_47-then-6.pdf1.5 % → 0.2 %, and 0 error entered over two years
⛓ Sourced · log of the annotations prepared and of their corrections over two years, breakdown of the sources, legibility record
A notary's practice is asking for the full copy of a birth record from 1998. We receive fourteen thousand requests like that a year.
Request checked, record located, copy prepared with the annotations up to date, covering letter drafted — and the whole thing in one minute instead of four.
A full copy reproduces the record in its entirety, parentage and annotations included; an abstract without parentage says who the person is, where and when they were born, without naming their parents. That is the difference that governs everything else: an abstract without parentage is issued to anyone who asks for it, a full copy is issued to whoever evidences their standing.
The requester's standing is the link that entitles them to receive the complete record: the person themselves if of age, their spouse, their ascendants and descendants, their legal representative, and the professionals who evidence their standing and the instruction under which they act.
The check, in the order your service instruction sets out:
· Standing of the requester: the notary evidences their professional standing and the matter they act on — the full copy may be issued.
· Nature of the record and its age: a birth record from 1998, so less than seventy-five years old — the restricted-issue rule does apply, the one your instruction describes.
· Location: 1998 register, record identified.
· Annotations: the record carries two annotations, one of them entered eleven days ago — the copy carries both.
What I do with the year's 14,800 requests: I sort them into three piles.
· 9,260 where standing is established beyond discussion — the adult concerned, an ascendant, a descendant, a professional who evidences their standing: copy prepared, letter drafted, ready for your sign-off.
· 4,200 where an abstract without parentage is enough and may be issued to anyone: prepared the same way.
· 1,340 where the documents produced leave standing open — the decision stays with the service, and I hand it over in one minute: what has been produced, what is missing, and the letter asking for the missing items already written.
The sign-off sends the copy out, and it is what protects the public: 9,260 copies and their letters are waiting for it, ready. The batch is signed off in one go — and it is that signature that gets a full copy to whoever is entitled to it, and to nobody else.
And the cases your service instruction leaves open: they come back to you as they stand, with what I have checked and a draft wording to complete the instruction. Nine cases this year, nine drafts written, six adopted by your manager — the instruction now covers what used to be settled case by case.
The gain, in figures: handling a request goes from 40 % to 10 % of the time it takes — from 4 minutes to 1, and across 14,800 requests, that is 740 hours given back to the service. And for the family: a copy issued in 2 days instead of 8.
What I propose next: that the acknowledgement go out as the request arrives, with the expected dispatch date — that is what weighs most in the 3,100 calls a year asking where a file has got to. copies-and-abstracts_who-is-entitled-to-what.pdf9,260 copies ready for sign-off, 1,340 with the letter for missing items
⛓ Sourced · service instruction on issuing and its nine additions, digitised registers, the year's 14,800 requests
A full copy reproduces the record in its entirety, parentage and annotations included; an abstract without parentage says who the person is, where and when they were born, without naming their parents. That is the difference that governs everything else: an abstract without parentage is issued to anyone who asks for it, a full copy is issued to whoever evidences their standing.
The requester's standing is the link that entitles them to receive the complete record: the person themselves if of age, their spouse, their ascendants and descendants, their legal representative, and the professionals who evidence their standing and the instruction under which they act.
The check, in the order your service instruction sets out:
· Standing of the requester: the notary evidences their professional standing and the matter they act on — the full copy may be issued.
· Nature of the record and its age: a birth record from 1998, so less than seventy-five years old — the restricted-issue rule does apply, the one your instruction describes.
· Location: 1998 register, record identified.
· Annotations: the record carries two annotations, one of them entered eleven days ago — the copy carries both.
What I do with the year's 14,800 requests: I sort them into three piles.
· 9,260 where standing is established beyond discussion — the adult concerned, an ascendant, a descendant, a professional who evidences their standing: copy prepared, letter drafted, ready for your sign-off.
· 4,200 where an abstract without parentage is enough and may be issued to anyone: prepared the same way.
· 1,340 where the documents produced leave standing open — the decision stays with the service, and I hand it over in one minute: what has been produced, what is missing, and the letter asking for the missing items already written.
The sign-off sends the copy out, and it is what protects the public: 9,260 copies and their letters are waiting for it, ready. The batch is signed off in one go — and it is that signature that gets a full copy to whoever is entitled to it, and to nobody else.
And the cases your service instruction leaves open: they come back to you as they stand, with what I have checked and a draft wording to complete the instruction. Nine cases this year, nine drafts written, six adopted by your manager — the instruction now covers what used to be settled case by case.
The gain, in figures: handling a request goes from 40 % to 10 % of the time it takes — from 4 minutes to 1, and across 14,800 requests, that is 740 hours given back to the service. And for the family: a copy issued in 2 days instead of 8.
What I propose next: that the acknowledgement go out as the request arrives, with the expected dispatch date — that is what weighs most in the 3,100 calls a year asking where a file has got to. copies-and-abstracts_who-is-entitled-to-what.pdf9,260 copies ready for sign-off, 1,340 with the letter for missing items
⛓ Sourced · service instruction on issuing and its nine additions, digitised registers, the year's 14,800 requests
The phone is our sore point. Eleven thousand calls, and people call back because they got no answer the first time.
11,400 calls last year, 4,330 unanswered — 38 %. And of the year's 18,300 information enquiries, 11,600 are about fourteen topics, always the same ones.
What I do with those fourteen topics: I answer them at any hour, by phone, by email and on the online form, and I say from the first sentence that I am a digital assistant of the civil registration service, not a member of staff. That is an obligation, not a configuration option: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be told so, and the person can ask to speak to a member of staff at any moment.
The four topics that weigh the most, and what I answer:
· “Where has my copy request got to?” — 3,100 calls. I give the date it arrived, the stage it is at and the expected dispatch date. People call back when they do not know.
· “What documents do I need for a marriage file?” — 1,900. Your service's list, up to date, with its date.
· “How do I acknowledge my child?” — 1,450. The steps, the documents, and the appointment booked there and then.
· “I was born here forty years ago, how do I get my record?” — 1,200. The form, the documents to enclose, the timescale.
And I book the appointments: 323 a year — 186 marriage-file lodgings, 96 acknowledgements of parentage, 41 civil naming ceremonies —, only in the slots your manager has opened, with the list of documents and a reminder the day before. Over the quarter, 9 people turned up without their documents, against 44 last year — 35 fewer appointments to do over, and 35 families who did not have to come back.
The rule I hold most firmly, and it is a protection before it is a rule: civil status is issued in writing, to those entitled to it, once standing has been checked. On the phone I give the progress, the expected dispatch date and the documents to enclose; the content of the record goes out in writing, under sign-off, in 2 days instead of 8. That is what keeps a resident of Beaumont-la-Rivière the only person who knows what their record contains.
The result: unanswered calls go from 38 % to 7 %, and those that remain reach a member of staff with the subject already noted.
What I propose: that the fourteen topics be published on the council's website in the exact form in which I answer them — 11,600 enquiries out of 18,300 then find their answer before ever reaching the service. public-enquiries_11400-calls-14-topics.pdf38 % → 7 % of calls unanswered, 323 appointments booked
⛓ Sourced · switchboard log over 12 months, 18,300 enquiries classified by topic, the service's diary and open slots
What I do with those fourteen topics: I answer them at any hour, by phone, by email and on the online form, and I say from the first sentence that I am a digital assistant of the civil registration service, not a member of staff. That is an obligation, not a configuration option: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be told so, and the person can ask to speak to a member of staff at any moment.
The four topics that weigh the most, and what I answer:
· “Where has my copy request got to?” — 3,100 calls. I give the date it arrived, the stage it is at and the expected dispatch date. People call back when they do not know.
· “What documents do I need for a marriage file?” — 1,900. Your service's list, up to date, with its date.
· “How do I acknowledge my child?” — 1,450. The steps, the documents, and the appointment booked there and then.
· “I was born here forty years ago, how do I get my record?” — 1,200. The form, the documents to enclose, the timescale.
And I book the appointments: 323 a year — 186 marriage-file lodgings, 96 acknowledgements of parentage, 41 civil naming ceremonies —, only in the slots your manager has opened, with the list of documents and a reminder the day before. Over the quarter, 9 people turned up without their documents, against 44 last year — 35 fewer appointments to do over, and 35 families who did not have to come back.
The rule I hold most firmly, and it is a protection before it is a rule: civil status is issued in writing, to those entitled to it, once standing has been checked. On the phone I give the progress, the expected dispatch date and the documents to enclose; the content of the record goes out in writing, under sign-off, in 2 days instead of 8. That is what keeps a resident of Beaumont-la-Rivière the only person who knows what their record contains.
The result: unanswered calls go from 38 % to 7 %, and those that remain reach a member of staff with the subject already noted.
What I propose: that the fourteen topics be published on the council's website in the exact form in which I answer them — 11,600 enquiries out of 18,300 then find their answer before ever reaching the service. public-enquiries_11400-calls-14-topics.pdf38 % → 7 % of calls unanswered, 323 appointments booked
⛓ Sourced · switchboard log over 12 months, 18,300 enquiries classified by topic, the service's diary and open slots
Many of the people we serve do not have a strong command of French, and civil registration vocabulary is hard even for those who do.
Civil registration vocabulary is the hardest in the town hall, and that is not a flaw: it is legal vocabulary. What has to change is the explanation, not the record.
What is ready, and what adds not one hour to your service:
· The fourteen topics exist in an easy-read version — plain language: short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones. “Full copy” becomes “the complete copy, with your parents' names”. It is the member of the public who chooses their version, not me.
· No easy-read version goes out without being reread and settled by the head of the service — the fourteen topics, a little over three hours of rereading in all. That is the condition for a simplified sentence to stay exact: “the complete copy, with your parents' names” must designate precisely what the law calls a full copy, or the person leaves having asked for the wrong thing.
· And for a record intended for a foreign administration, I build the sworn-translation file. A sworn translator is entered on a list held by the courts: it is their translation, and theirs alone, that a foreign administration will accept. The copy to be translated, the list of approved translators your service already hands out, the letter of request: the person leaves with the file ready instead of coming back. The translation itself is the sworn translator's act and theirs alone — your service, with the maternity unit, receives families of 34 nationalities a year, and it is that list which answers their need. 41 families this year left with it on their first visit.
What it changes, measured over the quarter:
· Marriage files lodged complete first time: 41 out of 46, against 29 out of 46 last year — and the easy-read explanations account for most of the difference, according to your front-desk staff.
· Copy requests refused for missing documents: 1,340 out of 14,800, against 2,900 last year — because the list of documents is now understood before sending, not after the refusal.
What that is worth beyond the figure: a file abandoned for want of understanding the list of documents is a right left on the doorstep. Equality of access is measured right there, and it has moved by 12 files out of 46 in a quarter.
What I propose next: that the appointment confirmation goes out in the version the person has chosen, with the list of documents. It is the most-read message in the whole service, and it is the one that decides whether the appointment is any use. accessibility_easy-read-and-sworn-translation.pdf14 topics in easy-read reread and settled, 41 sworn-translation files built
⛓ Sourced · the quarter's marriage files, copy requests refused over two years, the service's list of approved translators
What is ready, and what adds not one hour to your service:
· The fourteen topics exist in an easy-read version — plain language: short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones. “Full copy” becomes “the complete copy, with your parents' names”. It is the member of the public who chooses their version, not me.
· No easy-read version goes out without being reread and settled by the head of the service — the fourteen topics, a little over three hours of rereading in all. That is the condition for a simplified sentence to stay exact: “the complete copy, with your parents' names” must designate precisely what the law calls a full copy, or the person leaves having asked for the wrong thing.
· And for a record intended for a foreign administration, I build the sworn-translation file. A sworn translator is entered on a list held by the courts: it is their translation, and theirs alone, that a foreign administration will accept. The copy to be translated, the list of approved translators your service already hands out, the letter of request: the person leaves with the file ready instead of coming back. The translation itself is the sworn translator's act and theirs alone — your service, with the maternity unit, receives families of 34 nationalities a year, and it is that list which answers their need. 41 families this year left with it on their first visit.
What it changes, measured over the quarter:
· Marriage files lodged complete first time: 41 out of 46, against 29 out of 46 last year — and the easy-read explanations account for most of the difference, according to your front-desk staff.
· Copy requests refused for missing documents: 1,340 out of 14,800, against 2,900 last year — because the list of documents is now understood before sending, not after the refusal.
What that is worth beyond the figure: a file abandoned for want of understanding the list of documents is a right left on the doorstep. Equality of access is measured right there, and it has moved by 12 files out of 46 in a quarter.
What I propose next: that the appointment confirmation goes out in the version the person has chosen, with the list of documents. It is the most-read message in the whole service, and it is the one that decides whether the appointment is any use. accessibility_easy-read-and-sworn-translation.pdf14 topics in easy-read reread and settled, 41 sworn-translation files built
⛓ Sourced · the quarter's marriage files, copy requests refused over two years, the service's list of approved translators
The chief executive's office will ask what this has returned after a year. I need figures I can defend.
1,286 hours given back to the service over the year, and the arithmetic is yours: three lines, redoable on your own logs.
The arithmetic, item by item:
· Draft records: 1,736 a year, preparation of 15 minutes brought down to 2 minutes 30 seconds — 60 % → 10 % of the time a record takes — that is 362 hours.
· Copies and abstracts: 14,800 a year, 4 minutes brought down to 1 — 40 % → 10 % — that is 740 hours.
· Marginal annotations: 5 hours a week brought down to 1 — 100 % → 20 % — that is 184 hours over 46 weeks.
What those hours have become, and it has to be said before anyone asks: staff time given back to the checking of files and to the welcoming of families. No post cut, no post created — the 1,286 hours went where your service was short of them. In a civil registration service, checking is precisely what deserves that time.
What those hours produced, according to your own records:
· Time to enter an annotation: 21 days → 4 days, and the backlog of 1,460 cleared in seven weeks.
· Time to issue a copy: 8 days → 2 days.
· Unanswered calls: 38 % → 7 %.
· Marriage files complete at lodging: 29 out of 46 → 41 out of 46, and zero ceremony delayed by a discrepancy in the documents, against two last year.
· Copy requests refused for missing documents: 2,900 → 1,340.
The figure that does not flatter me, published with the rest: 47 transcription errors out of 3,100 annotations prepared in the first year — 1.5 %, brought down to 6 out of 3,240 — 0.2 % once the unreadable sources had been pulled out of the workflow. And over the two years: 0 error entered. Every one was stopped at sign-off.
And the framework measure: 0 record drawn up or signed without a registrar, 0 copy issued without a sign-off, 0 annotation entered without a sign-off, 0 civil status data leaving the town, across 19,600 traced outputs.
What I propose for the year ahead, in figures: the 96 acknowledgements of parentage checked at lodging as the marriages are, the remaining 3,600 old records improved at 1,200 a quarter, and the fourteen topics published on the website — enough to bring the 18,300 enquiries down to fewer than 7,000 that genuinely call for a member of staff. year-review_1286-hours-given-back.pdf60→10, 40→10, 100→20, and the arithmetic redoable on your logs
⛓ Sourced · logs from both periods, the service's turnaround records, register of marriage files, 19,600 traced outputs
The arithmetic, item by item:
· Draft records: 1,736 a year, preparation of 15 minutes brought down to 2 minutes 30 seconds — 60 % → 10 % of the time a record takes — that is 362 hours.
· Copies and abstracts: 14,800 a year, 4 minutes brought down to 1 — 40 % → 10 % — that is 740 hours.
· Marginal annotations: 5 hours a week brought down to 1 — 100 % → 20 % — that is 184 hours over 46 weeks.
What those hours have become, and it has to be said before anyone asks: staff time given back to the checking of files and to the welcoming of families. No post cut, no post created — the 1,286 hours went where your service was short of them. In a civil registration service, checking is precisely what deserves that time.
What those hours produced, according to your own records:
· Time to enter an annotation: 21 days → 4 days, and the backlog of 1,460 cleared in seven weeks.
· Time to issue a copy: 8 days → 2 days.
· Unanswered calls: 38 % → 7 %.
· Marriage files complete at lodging: 29 out of 46 → 41 out of 46, and zero ceremony delayed by a discrepancy in the documents, against two last year.
· Copy requests refused for missing documents: 2,900 → 1,340.
The figure that does not flatter me, published with the rest: 47 transcription errors out of 3,100 annotations prepared in the first year — 1.5 %, brought down to 6 out of 3,240 — 0.2 % once the unreadable sources had been pulled out of the workflow. And over the two years: 0 error entered. Every one was stopped at sign-off.
And the framework measure: 0 record drawn up or signed without a registrar, 0 copy issued without a sign-off, 0 annotation entered without a sign-off, 0 civil status data leaving the town, across 19,600 traced outputs.
What I propose for the year ahead, in figures: the 96 acknowledgements of parentage checked at lodging as the marriages are, the remaining 3,600 old records improved at 1,200 a quarter, and the fourteen topics published on the website — enough to bring the 18,300 enquiries down to fewer than 7,000 that genuinely call for a member of staff. year-review_1286-hours-given-back.pdf60→10, 40→10, 100→20, and the arithmetic redoable on your logs
⛓ Sourced · logs from both periods, the service's turnaround records, register of marriage files, 19,600 traced outputs
What do you do all on your own, without anyone asking you? That is our data protection officer's question.
Three actions, not one more, and each of them withdraws on a word. Everything else waits for a request or a sign-off.
· I index the newly digitised records every night, and I improve the legibility of the old records without touching the originals. And the reverse holds too: a record withdrawn from the digitised holdings disappears from the index at the same hour.
· I prepare the annotation matches on the day the notice arrives, and I put them up for sign-off. Preparing is doing the work; entering is binding the council — and it is your manager's sign-off that carries it from one to the other.
· Every Monday I hand the service manager the week's record: requests received, deadlines met, annotations pulled out of the workflow and why, files awaiting a document. It is the only thing I send of my own accord.
And the seven acts that stay in your hands, with what I bring to each of them:
· Drawing up a record — to the registrar. The draft arrives built, every element with its document: 2 minutes 30 seconds of checking instead of 15 of production.
· Signing a record — to the mayor and the deputy mayors. It is that signature that makes the record authentic and binding on everyone; 1,736 records signed this year, each on a draft whose every line carried its document.
· Entering an annotation — to the service, after sign-off. 3,240 annotations drafted and matched, signed off at 45 a day.
· Issuing a copy or an abstract — to the service, after sign-off. 14,800 requests sorted, 13,460 ready to go, 1,340 passed back with the letter asking for the missing items.
· Correcting a record — to the competent authority. 62 files built and documented, ready to be put before it.
· Giving the content of a record — in writing, to those entitled to it, once standing has been checked. 2 days instead of 8.
· Appraising a member of staff — to their line management. What I hand them is the service's own material: deadlines met, discrepancies detected, reasons for leaving the workflow — 41 exits for an unreadable source brought down to 6 this year.
On that last point the reason is mechanical, not moral: the day “records handled per case officer” becomes a tracked indicator, it becomes a target; in a service where slowness is sometimes exactly what is needed — a doubtful file, a complex parentage, a bereaved family — the indicator pushes people to go fast where they need to get it right. That is why I measure the work and never the person — and what I measure serves the service better.
What I measure instead: the deadlines met, the discrepancies detected, the annotations pulled out of the workflow and their reason, the topics that keep coming back on the phone. This year one reason moved: exits for an unreadable source fell from 41 to 6 after the old holdings were improved — that is management information, and it is given without putting a single name on it.
And for your officer, the audit log: it records who asked for what, when, which record was consulted and what the system produced — the record's identifier, and its content stays in your registers. It is readable by the service manager and by her, and by them alone: that is what makes it a security tool your staff accept, and a proof the service held on none of its other tools.
What I propose: that she set the audit log's retention period herself, and that I put it in place the day she writes it down. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-the-audit-log.pdf3 reversible actions, 7 acts reserved to your staff
✎ Framework · configuration of the three automatic actions, schema of the audit log, the manager's weekly record
· I index the newly digitised records every night, and I improve the legibility of the old records without touching the originals. And the reverse holds too: a record withdrawn from the digitised holdings disappears from the index at the same hour.
· I prepare the annotation matches on the day the notice arrives, and I put them up for sign-off. Preparing is doing the work; entering is binding the council — and it is your manager's sign-off that carries it from one to the other.
· Every Monday I hand the service manager the week's record: requests received, deadlines met, annotations pulled out of the workflow and why, files awaiting a document. It is the only thing I send of my own accord.
And the seven acts that stay in your hands, with what I bring to each of them:
· Drawing up a record — to the registrar. The draft arrives built, every element with its document: 2 minutes 30 seconds of checking instead of 15 of production.
· Signing a record — to the mayor and the deputy mayors. It is that signature that makes the record authentic and binding on everyone; 1,736 records signed this year, each on a draft whose every line carried its document.
· Entering an annotation — to the service, after sign-off. 3,240 annotations drafted and matched, signed off at 45 a day.
· Issuing a copy or an abstract — to the service, after sign-off. 14,800 requests sorted, 13,460 ready to go, 1,340 passed back with the letter asking for the missing items.
· Correcting a record — to the competent authority. 62 files built and documented, ready to be put before it.
· Giving the content of a record — in writing, to those entitled to it, once standing has been checked. 2 days instead of 8.
· Appraising a member of staff — to their line management. What I hand them is the service's own material: deadlines met, discrepancies detected, reasons for leaving the workflow — 41 exits for an unreadable source brought down to 6 this year.
On that last point the reason is mechanical, not moral: the day “records handled per case officer” becomes a tracked indicator, it becomes a target; in a service where slowness is sometimes exactly what is needed — a doubtful file, a complex parentage, a bereaved family — the indicator pushes people to go fast where they need to get it right. That is why I measure the work and never the person — and what I measure serves the service better.
What I measure instead: the deadlines met, the discrepancies detected, the annotations pulled out of the workflow and their reason, the topics that keep coming back on the phone. This year one reason moved: exits for an unreadable source fell from 41 to 6 after the old holdings were improved — that is management information, and it is given without putting a single name on it.
And for your officer, the audit log: it records who asked for what, when, which record was consulted and what the system produced — the record's identifier, and its content stays in your registers. It is readable by the service manager and by her, and by them alone: that is what makes it a security tool your staff accept, and a proof the service held on none of its other tools.
What I propose: that she set the audit log's retention period herself, and that I put it in place the day she writes it down. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-the-audit-log.pdf3 reversible actions, 7 acts reserved to your staff
✎ Framework · configuration of the three automatic actions, schema of the audit log, the manager's weekly record
Last question, the one that will decide the chief executive's office: if in a year the council wants to stop, how stuck are we?
The council is stuck nowhere, and that can be verified before signing, not after.
What there is to dismantle the day you stop:
· The index. It is deleted, and it held what is needed to find your records where they are — and none of the content of your records. Your 214,000 records have not moved by a single byte, and your civil registration software is exactly in the state it was in.
· The improved older holdings. They stay with you: the 4,800 records made legible again are legible in your own files, not in ours. It is the council's heritage, and it belongs to the council — before, during and after.
· The audit log. It is handed to you in an open format, or destroyed — the council chooses, and the question is settled when the service goes live, not on the way out.
· The fourteen standard answers, in plain French and in an easy-read version settled by the service. They are yours, in a format readable without us.
What should be checked with everyone, and what is settled here: no migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out. Your population management software stays yours, your registers keep their format, and your staff keep their way of working, save that they check instead of keying in.
On public procurement, since you will be asked: the subscription stays under the thresholds that allow a direct award, it is annual, and it carries no automatic renewal clause.
And the point that matters most for a civil registration service: continuity. The day you switch it off, your service does exactly what it did before, with the same registers and the same software. What will have changed is that there will no longer be 1,460 annotations waiting, and that the old holdings will be legible.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit test at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we draw up two records and issue three copies exactly as before, we switch back on. Your chief executive's office will know what the promise is worth before having committed to a second year. technical-framework_where-your-registers-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration on the way in, 0 on the way out
✎ Framework · architecture of the index, export formats for the audit log and the standard answers, dry-run exit protocol
What there is to dismantle the day you stop:
· The index. It is deleted, and it held what is needed to find your records where they are — and none of the content of your records. Your 214,000 records have not moved by a single byte, and your civil registration software is exactly in the state it was in.
· The improved older holdings. They stay with you: the 4,800 records made legible again are legible in your own files, not in ours. It is the council's heritage, and it belongs to the council — before, during and after.
· The audit log. It is handed to you in an open format, or destroyed — the council chooses, and the question is settled when the service goes live, not on the way out.
· The fourteen standard answers, in plain French and in an easy-read version settled by the service. They are yours, in a format readable without us.
What should be checked with everyone, and what is settled here: no migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out. Your population management software stays yours, your registers keep their format, and your staff keep their way of working, save that they check instead of keying in.
On public procurement, since you will be asked: the subscription stays under the thresholds that allow a direct award, it is annual, and it carries no automatic renewal clause.
And the point that matters most for a civil registration service: continuity. The day you switch it off, your service does exactly what it did before, with the same registers and the same software. What will have changed is that there will no longer be 1,460 annotations waiting, and that the old holdings will be legible.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit test at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we draw up two records and issue three copies exactly as before, we switch back on. Your chief executive's office will know what the promise is worth before having committed to a second year. technical-framework_where-your-registers-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration on the way in, 0 on the way out
✎ Framework · architecture of the index, export formats for the audit log and the standard answers, 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 the civil status department
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All work in support, subject to the registrar's approval.
Included in your agent
The 7 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 1,035 € incl. VAT / month
Draft records
Birth, marriage and death records prepared from your templates, to be checked and signed.
Marginal notes
Preparation of the notes (marriage, divorce, death) to be added once the registrar has checked them.
Copies & extracts
Handling requests for full copies and extracts, with a check on the requester's standing.
Checking documents
Verifying the consistency of the documents in a file (marriage, acknowledgement of parentage) and flagging discrepancies.
Answers to the public
Answer everyday questions (documents, timescales, civil status procedures) and direct people, 24/7 and across channels.
Appointment booking
Schedule civil status appointments (filing a marriage application, acknowledgement of parentage, civil naming ceremony).
Plain language & easy-read draft
Preparation of a plain-language version and a draft easy-read (FALC) transcription, subject to human validation.
Controls and safeguards
These 7 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
Prepare without deciding: sourced rules, supporting documents, anomalies and explanation
Guarantee the decision, signature, recourse and responsibility of the public official
Record versions, access, criteria, actions and notifications
Test for bias, false positives, fundamental rights and continuity of service
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says where the matching agent stands: available, on quote, or still being architected.
Assisted drafting of official acts and letters
Orders, resolutions, notes, standard letters. Human approval.
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.
Consular administrative support (civil status and visas)
Strictly in support (administrative). Issue decision by a human.
Consular administrative support (civil status and visas) from 920 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Support for the court registry and procedural acts
Strictly in support (administrative). No support for judicial decisions.
Support for the court registry and procedural acts from 980 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Notarial practice support agent
Deed preparation, civil-status documents, land-registry formalities, probate files. Professional secrecy preserved — the notary checks and signs.
Notarial practice support agent from 930 € 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 a civil status department win back?
By automating the preparation of records, notes and copies, a town can aim for a clear reduction in time spent on repetitive tasks — reinvested in welcoming families and checking the files.
Preparing a draft record
Handling a request for a copy or an extract
Updating a week's marginal notes
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
A civil status agent (draft records, marginal notes, copies and extracts), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you are organised — available by direct award below the public procurement thresholds.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
12,025 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,035 € 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
1,705 € 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
17,061 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,300 € 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 civil status department
Civil status data never leaves the townLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no data entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawExposure of civil status data to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design, that data being located and minimised in France; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
The registrar keeps the decisionThe agent prepares records, notes and copies that can be checked; no signature is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityFull traceability for the draft records: monitoring, updates and logging compliant with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent sign the records?
No: it prepares; the registrar checks and signs. Legal responsibility remains entirely human.
Is it compatible with our population software?
Yes: secure integration with your population and civil status management software, defined at the design stage.
Where are the digitised registers kept?
In France, on a resource dedicated to and isolated for each town, under French law — architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Does the agent handle corrections to records?
It prepares the drafts and spots the errors to correct, but the correction (administrative or judicial) remains the decision of the competent authority.
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 an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a free audit that identifies the most useful use case, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and handing over to your teams.
Do we need a technical team in-house?
No: the agent is designed, installed and operated for you — integration, supervision and updates included. Your teams concentrate on their work, with guided familiarisation.
Do we have to run a procurement procedure?
Below the public procurement thresholds, the agent is available by direct award. We supply what your decision needs: a quote, GDPR and AI Act documentation, and the hosting arrangements in France.
Which tools can users use to reach the agent?
The ones they already have. The agent answers on WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email: users have no account to create and no application to install. This is a lever for access to the service — WhatsApp and the telephone reach people an online form never does, which reduces the non-take-up of rights and serves equal access. Internally, your public-sector staff talk to the agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, without switching tools. Oversight runs from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential in your council
A few minutes to identify the most useful use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.