● Public sector — Municipal police (administrative support)
AI agent for the municipal police (administrative support)
An assistant that prepares the orders, lays out the reports and keeps the administrative incident log — the officer and the authority keep every decision. A strictly administrative and documentary scope: no operational, biometric or surveillance use. Hosted in France, on a resource isolated for each authority.
Hosted in France
Strictly administrative support
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Municipal police assistant · hosted in France
Prepare a draft order banning parking on rue Pasteur on Tuesday, for a house move.
Draft order ready. Citation of articles L.2213-1 and L.2213-2 of the local government code, grounds (house move with a van), area (rue Pasteur, even-numbered side, from no. 8 to no. 14), hours 7am – 6pm, signage at the applicant's expense.
Still to complete: the order number — for the competent authority to approve and sign.
⛓ Source · your order templates + the mayor's policing powers
Still to complete: the order number — for the competent authority to approve and sign.
⛓ Source · your order templates + the mayor's policing powers
Lay out this morning's report from my notes: fly-tipping observed on chemin des Vignes.
Report laid out. Observations dated and time-stamped, precise location, description of the facts, photographs referenced, a documentary reminder of the possible administrative follow-up. No legal classification is settled on your behalf.
The administrative incident log has been updated at the same time.
✎ Action · report ready for review — the officer checks and signs it
The administrative incident log has been updated at the same time.
✎ Action · report ready for review — the officer checks and signs it
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 public officer decidesAdministrative support, never operational
✦ In brief
For the municipal police, a Blue Lemon Agent agent works exclusively in administrative support — draft municipal orders, reports, incident logs, minutes, replies to residents — and keeps a watch on the mayor's policing powers. No operational, biometric or surveillance use: that scope is excluded by design and by the AI Act. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France on a resource dedicated to and isolated for each authority, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Every document is reviewed and signed by the officer or the competent authority; the time won back goes to being present on the ground. Live within a few weeks. Your public-sector staff write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and residents 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 municipal police forces — and why they hesitate
Orders, reports, incident logs, registers: the administrative side of the job keeps growing, at the expense of being present on the streets. And the subject is sensitive: AI belongs here only in documentary support, never on the ground.
! The issue
Municipal police officers spend a growing share of their time at a desk — draft orders, reports, incident logs, minutes — at the expense of being on the ground, which is the heart of the job. Yet most consumer AI tools would amount to entrusting observations, identities and residents' circumstances to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
For the municipal police, AI is only acceptable if it is sovereign, confidential and strictly confined to administrative support. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, no operational, biometric or surveillance use — excluded by design and by the AI Act. The time saved on drafting goes back to being present on the streets; every act stays decided and signed by the officer or the competent authority.
The decisive point
Protecting the data and the terms of use: sovereignty & compliance
Reports and incident logs contain sensitive data about residents. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it — and how the scope stays strictly administrative.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the authority: 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 — residents' data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of residents' data to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per authority
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
The agent is strictly in administrative support; no operational, biometric or surveillance use; 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
4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The public body in this demonstration
Fictional public bodyMunicipality of Roche-l'Étang — 21,600 inhabitants, municipal police station (fictional municipality)
- Sector
- Municipal police of a town of 21,600 inhabitants — 47 km of municipal roads, a weekly market, 38 public-highway events declared in the year, 4 school groups
- Headcount
- 14 staff at the station, including the 11 municipal police officers and the head of service in the pilot, 2 public-highway wardens and an administrative officer; the urban CCTV control room stays outside the scope, and the agent has no access to it
- Public served
- 6,400 enquiries from residents a year — 4,100 calls to the station, 1,400 emails, 620 counter visits, 280 website forms; lost property, parking, noise, animals, permits and formalities lead the list
- Order of magnitude
- 640 draft orders prepared a year, 1,860 reports and administrative incident-log entries, 52 weekly activity reports, 86 legal texts and rulings tracked by the watch
- Tools already in place
- The station's incident-log software, the register of orders, order templates settled by the chief executive of the municipality, the town's road plan, electronic signature folder, Microsoft Teams and email — the agent plugs into them read-only, nothing is replaced or migrated
- Who decides what
- The mayor holds the police powers and signs the orders — CGCT, art. L2212-2, L2213-1 and L2213-2; the municipal police officer records breaches by procès-verbal and reports to the judicial police officer — Internal Security Code art. L511-1, Code of Criminal Procedure art. 21-2; the head of service settles the templates. The agent prepares, writes up and dates; it characterises no fact
- Room for improvement
- 1,148 calls out of 4,100 ring unanswered — 28.0 %; a resident's email waits 9 days on average; activity reports and administrative follow-up are 100 % manual, 3 h 30 a week and 182 hours over the year; 96 draft orders out of 640 had to be redone before signature — 15.0 %
At Roche-l'Étang, eleven municipal police officers cover 47 kilometres of roads, a weekly market and 38 declared events a year. The desk takes a growing share of the job: 640 draft orders, 1,860 reports and incident-log entries, a weekly activity report, and 6,400 enquiries from residents, most of them on a dozen topics that keep coming back. The exchanges below cover one year, from the survey of the flow to the review presented to the municipal council. The agent is hosted in France on a resource isolated per municipality, reads the incident log and the register of orders without ever writing operational content to them, and its scope is strictly administrative and documentary: it prepares orders that the mayor signs, writes up reports from what the officers saw, serves residents' routine enquiries — and it has no access to CCTV feeds, performs no biometric recognition and characterises no fact.
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.
Municipal police assistant · hosted in France
I have reread your 6,400 enquiries for the year and gone back over your 640 draft orders against your register and your road plan — the review that 47 kilometres of roads never leave time for.
What the count says: 10 topics cover 4,260 enquiries out of 6,400, that is 66.6 % of the flow. Lost property, obstructive parking and impounding, neighbourhood noise, stray animals, permits to occupy public space, temporary drinks licences, removal-day orders, burning and dumping, holiday property watch, formalities and documents required. The 10 reference answers are written, sourced on your municipal orders in force and on the legal texts, and dated — they are waiting for you.
What the three items weigh, and you can check each on your own logs:
· A draft order takes 34 minutes end to end, of which 60 % is re-entering the template, the citations and the perimeter — 20 minutes 24.
· A report or incident-log entry takes 14 minutes, of which 40 % is writing up — 5 minutes 36.
· Activity reports and administrative follow-up are 100 % manual work: 3 h 30 a week for the head of service, that is 182 hours over the year.
And the survey that pleases nobody, starting with me: 96 of your 640 draft orders were redone before signature — 15.0 %. I will tell you straight away that most of those redos are my doing, and the next exchange tells you exactly which and why.
The proposal, and it takes half an hour of your time: I have written you four control rules for draft orders and run them over your last 24 months — 1,280 orders. The head of service settles the wording, and they run on the March batch. station-flow_6400-enquiries-10-topics.pdf4,260 enquiries across 10 topics, the three items costed, 456 hours identified
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of enquiry log, register of orders, municipal road plan, electronic signature folder
What the count says: 10 topics cover 4,260 enquiries out of 6,400, that is 66.6 % of the flow. Lost property, obstructive parking and impounding, neighbourhood noise, stray animals, permits to occupy public space, temporary drinks licences, removal-day orders, burning and dumping, holiday property watch, formalities and documents required. The 10 reference answers are written, sourced on your municipal orders in force and on the legal texts, and dated — they are waiting for you.
What the three items weigh, and you can check each on your own logs:
· A draft order takes 34 minutes end to end, of which 60 % is re-entering the template, the citations and the perimeter — 20 minutes 24.
· A report or incident-log entry takes 14 minutes, of which 40 % is writing up — 5 minutes 36.
· Activity reports and administrative follow-up are 100 % manual work: 3 h 30 a week for the head of service, that is 182 hours over the year.
And the survey that pleases nobody, starting with me: 96 of your 640 draft orders were redone before signature — 15.0 %. I will tell you straight away that most of those redos are my doing, and the next exchange tells you exactly which and why.
The proposal, and it takes half an hour of your time: I have written you four control rules for draft orders and run them over your last 24 months — 1,280 orders. The head of service settles the wording, and they run on the March batch. station-flow_6400-enquiries-10-topics.pdf4,260 enquiries across 10 topics, the three items costed, 456 hours identified
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of enquiry log, register of orders, municipal road plan, electronic signature folder
Those 96 redos — is it us writing the request badly, or you writing the order badly?
It is me, and on one precise point. 71 of the 96 redos — 74.0 % — turn on the PERIMETER. I was carrying over from the template the phrase « rue Pasteur », which is the applicant's phrase, whereas article L2213-2 of the French general code of local authorities makes parking a measure taken « by reasoned order »: an order banning parking along a whole street for a two-hour removal is an order that gets challenged, and your officers were correcting it by hand, every time.
What I did about it: since 14 April, the perimeter is requested and written in street numbers, with the length in metres and the number of bays concerned, taken from your road plan. Across the 214 drafts produced since, 7 were redone — 3.3 % — and none on that ground.
And here are the four control rules, run over your 1,280 orders of the last 24 months. For each one, the number of flags, the share confirmed on examination by the head of service, and what it lets through:
· Rule A — perimeter with no street numbers or length: 186 flags, 179 confirmed — 96.2 %.
· Rule B — temporary order with no end date, or whose duration exceeds that of the stated reason: 142 flags, 128 confirmed — 90.1 %.
· Rule C — citation of an article that is not the basis of the stated reason: 98 flags, 74 confirmed — 75.5 %. It is the least reliable of the four, and I am giving it to you as such: in 24 cases the broad citation was a deliberate choice by the service.
And here is what those three let through, because you need to know it before you sign: 61 orders have no date of posting or publication in the register — so their entry into force is not established, and none of the three sees them. I wrote rule D — order signed with no publicity date entered in the register within 48 hours — and ran it over the same 24 months: 61 flags, 58 confirmed — 95.1 %.
The four rules together cover 402 of the period's 431 fragile orders — 93.3 %, that is 201 a year. Bringing them into service stays with the station: a rule only takes effect once the head of service has validated it. four-control-rules-for-orders_tested-over-24-months.pdf4 rules tested, 402 fragile orders covered out of 431, the 71 perimeter redos and their fix
⛓ Sourced · CGCT art. L2213-2 · 24 months of the register of orders, 1,280 orders, signature-folder redo log
What I did about it: since 14 April, the perimeter is requested and written in street numbers, with the length in metres and the number of bays concerned, taken from your road plan. Across the 214 drafts produced since, 7 were redone — 3.3 % — and none on that ground.
And here are the four control rules, run over your 1,280 orders of the last 24 months. For each one, the number of flags, the share confirmed on examination by the head of service, and what it lets through:
· Rule A — perimeter with no street numbers or length: 186 flags, 179 confirmed — 96.2 %.
· Rule B — temporary order with no end date, or whose duration exceeds that of the stated reason: 142 flags, 128 confirmed — 90.1 %.
· Rule C — citation of an article that is not the basis of the stated reason: 98 flags, 74 confirmed — 75.5 %. It is the least reliable of the four, and I am giving it to you as such: in 24 cases the broad citation was a deliberate choice by the service.
And here is what those three let through, because you need to know it before you sign: 61 orders have no date of posting or publication in the register — so their entry into force is not established, and none of the three sees them. I wrote rule D — order signed with no publicity date entered in the register within 48 hours — and ran it over the same 24 months: 61 flags, 58 confirmed — 95.1 %.
The four rules together cover 402 of the period's 431 fragile orders — 93.3 %, that is 201 a year. Bringing them into service stays with the station: a rule only takes effect once the head of service has validated it. four-control-rules-for-orders_tested-over-24-months.pdf4 rules tested, 402 fragile orders covered out of 431, the 71 perimeter redos and their fix
⛓ Sourced · CGCT art. L2213-2 · 24 months of the register of orders, 1,280 orders, signature-folder redo log
And the watch on the mayor's police powers? We stopped it last year for lack of time.
It is running again, on five declared sources, and it tracks 86 texts and rulings a year on your scope: Légifrance for the general code of local authorities and the Internal Security Code, the Official Journal, prefectoral orders in the register of administrative acts, published administrative case law on the mayor's police powers, and your own municipal council resolutions.
What I publish against myself, because that fifth source was missing: out of the year's 86 texts, my watch missed 5 — 5.8 %. And the explanation is particularly awkward for me: all five are resolutions of YOUR municipal council. I was watching national law and not watching the town. Two of the five amended the weekly market regulations, which three of your order templates cite.
What I did about it: the internal source has been connected since 2 May, and I caught up the previous 24 months — 34 resolutions recovered, 6 of which touch a template in service. Those six templates are marked « to be reviewed » in the signature folder; I did not modify them, the head of service and the chief executive settle the templates.
The useful marker: the delay between a text or a resolution being published and it reaching your templates has gone from 21 days to under 24 hours, and it no longer depends on someone having the time. What I propose: a two-page watch note every Monday — what has been published, what it touches here, which template is concerned — and you decide whether you want the administrative case-law review, which adds a quarter of an hour of reading. police-powers-watch_5-sources-86-texts-and-the-5-missed.pdfThe 5 sources, the 5 resolutions missed and their cause, the 24-month catch-up
⛓ Sourced · five declared watch sources, 24 months caught up, the station's register of order templates
What I publish against myself, because that fifth source was missing: out of the year's 86 texts, my watch missed 5 — 5.8 %. And the explanation is particularly awkward for me: all five are resolutions of YOUR municipal council. I was watching national law and not watching the town. Two of the five amended the weekly market regulations, which three of your order templates cite.
What I did about it: the internal source has been connected since 2 May, and I caught up the previous 24 months — 34 resolutions recovered, 6 of which touch a template in service. Those six templates are marked « to be reviewed » in the signature folder; I did not modify them, the head of service and the chief executive settle the templates.
The useful marker: the delay between a text or a resolution being published and it reaching your templates has gone from 21 days to under 24 hours, and it no longer depends on someone having the time. What I propose: a two-page watch note every Monday — what has been published, what it touches here, which template is concerned — and you decide whether you want the administrative case-law review, which adds a quarter of an hour of reading. police-powers-watch_5-sources-86-texts-and-the-5-missed.pdfThe 5 sources, the 5 resolutions missed and their cause, the 24-month catch-up
⛓ Sourced · five declared watch sources, 24 months caught up, the station's register of order templates
The draft order you asked for last night is in the signature folder, and I will tell you line by line what it contains.
Subject: temporary parking ban for a house removal, rue Pasteur, even-numbered side, from no. 8 to no. 14 — 38 metres, 6 marked bays, Tuesday 17 March, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
What is filled in, and checkable:
· The citations, by number: CGCT art. L2212-2 (the mayor's police powers), art. L2213-1 (traffic police on roads within the built-up area), art. L2213-2 (regulation of stopping and parking, by reasoned order), and your permanent municipal order of 3 March 2024 on occupation of public space.
· The reasons, written rather than copied: removal with a 20 m³ van, need for parking adjacent to the building, application filed on 9 March by the named applicant.
· The perimeter to the metre, taken from your road plan — numbers, length, number of bays — and the duration bounded by the reason: eleven hours, not a whole day.
· Signage at the applicant's expense, with the 48-hour installation deadline your permanent order imposes, and the removal date.
· The routes and time limits for appeal.
What arrives empty, and deliberately so: the order number, the posting date and the signature. The mayor signs: it is their police power, not mine and not yours.
The figure: an order used to take 34 minutes, of which 20 minutes 24 was mechanical re-entry; it now takes you 3 minutes 24 of rereading. Across 640 orders, 181 hours returned over the year — more than five weeks of 35 hours, rounded down. And from signature onwards the register is served: continuous number, date, perimeter, duration, end date and expected posting date. draft-order_citations-reasons-perimeter-to-the-metre.pdfThe full draft, each citation by number, the perimeter in metres, what stays empty until signature
⛓ Sourced · CGCT art. L2212-2, L2213-1 and L2213-2 · station templates, road plan, permanent order of 3 March 2024
Subject: temporary parking ban for a house removal, rue Pasteur, even-numbered side, from no. 8 to no. 14 — 38 metres, 6 marked bays, Tuesday 17 March, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
What is filled in, and checkable:
· The citations, by number: CGCT art. L2212-2 (the mayor's police powers), art. L2213-1 (traffic police on roads within the built-up area), art. L2213-2 (regulation of stopping and parking, by reasoned order), and your permanent municipal order of 3 March 2024 on occupation of public space.
· The reasons, written rather than copied: removal with a 20 m³ van, need for parking adjacent to the building, application filed on 9 March by the named applicant.
· The perimeter to the metre, taken from your road plan — numbers, length, number of bays — and the duration bounded by the reason: eleven hours, not a whole day.
· Signage at the applicant's expense, with the 48-hour installation deadline your permanent order imposes, and the removal date.
· The routes and time limits for appeal.
What arrives empty, and deliberately so: the order number, the posting date and the signature. The mayor signs: it is their police power, not mine and not yours.
The figure: an order used to take 34 minutes, of which 20 minutes 24 was mechanical re-entry; it now takes you 3 minutes 24 of rereading. Across 640 orders, 181 hours returned over the year — more than five weeks of 35 hours, rounded down. And from signature onwards the register is served: continuous number, date, perimeter, duration, end date and expected posting date. draft-order_citations-reasons-perimeter-to-the-metre.pdfThe full draft, each citation by number, the perimeter in metres, what stays empty until signature
⛓ Sourced · CGCT art. L2212-2, L2213-1 and L2213-2 · station templates, road plan, permanent order of 3 March 2024
We would rather have a permanent parking ban along the whole of rue Pasteur. It would save doing this 214 times a year.
I can write it, and if the mayor signs it, it applies — it is their police power, and I am not here to talk them out of it on principle. But I owe you the figure first, because it is in your own files.
What your register says: over 24 months, 3 of your orders were the subject of an administrative challenge, and all 3 turned on the perimeter — a whole street where the stated reason concerned only a stretch of it. Two were withdrawn, one was narrowed. A permanent order over the 340 metres of rue Pasteur for a reason that concerns only 38 of them is exactly the configuration of those three.
And here is what I propose instead, because your need is real and it has an answer: a permanent framework order for removals, setting the conditions once and for all — pavement width, notice period for the application, signage at the applicant's expense, maximum time window, perimeter limited to the declared street numbers. Each removal then gives rise not to an individual order but to a prior-declaration receipt, produced within the minute and entered in the register.
The calculation, on your own figures: 214 individual removal orders a year at 3 minutes 24 of rereading each become 1 framework order reread once and 214 receipts at 40 seconds — and above all a single act to defend instead of 214. The gain in hours is modest, 9 hours; the gain in legal exposure is not counted in hours.
The decision is the mayor's, and it is taken on those two options written side by side.
⛓ Sourced · the town's register of orders, 3 administrative challenges over 24 months and their outcome, 214 removal orders
What your register says: over 24 months, 3 of your orders were the subject of an administrative challenge, and all 3 turned on the perimeter — a whole street where the stated reason concerned only a stretch of it. Two were withdrawn, one was narrowed. A permanent order over the 340 metres of rue Pasteur for a reason that concerns only 38 of them is exactly the configuration of those three.
And here is what I propose instead, because your need is real and it has an answer: a permanent framework order for removals, setting the conditions once and for all — pavement width, notice period for the application, signage at the applicant's expense, maximum time window, perimeter limited to the declared street numbers. Each removal then gives rise not to an individual order but to a prior-declaration receipt, produced within the minute and entered in the register.
The calculation, on your own figures: 214 individual removal orders a year at 3 minutes 24 of rereading each become 1 framework order reread once and 214 receipts at 40 seconds — and above all a single act to defend instead of 214. The gain in hours is modest, 9 hours; the gain in legal exposure is not counted in hours.
The decision is the mayor's, and it is taken on those two options written side by side.
⛓ Sourced · the town's register of orders, 3 administrative challenges over 24 months and their outcome, 214 removal orders
And if the mayor still wants the permanent ban along the whole street?
I write it, and I write it well. The police power belongs to the mayor; my job is to make what they sign as solid as possible, not to choose in their place.
What I supply so that the decision is taken with eyes open, and it is already ready:
· The complete draft permanent order, citations by number, reasons drafted on the nuisances actually recorded rather than on a generality, the perimeter of 340 metres, and a permanent duration owned as such with its annual review clause — a review clause is what distinguishes a permanent measure from a forgotten one.
· The one-page note setting the three challenges of 2024 and 2025 side by side: the reason given, the perimeter chosen, the outcome, and the date. Three lines, not an opinion.
· The tally of facts that would ground the reasons — 147 incident-log entries on rue Pasteur over 24 months, of which 88 on parking, spread across 3 distinct stretches of the street, with the map. It is that tally that makes a statement of reasons defensible, and it did not exist before because nobody had time to count.
· And the « removals » framework order alongside, ready too, so that the choice is made between two texts and not between a text and an idea.
Both drafts are in the signature folder, provisionally numbered, and the register is ready to receive whichever is signed. Whatever the choice, the posting date goes out as an automatic reminder 48 hours after signature. register-of-orders-and-activity-reports_what-is-served-at-signature.pdfThe register served at signature, the two drafts side by side, the model weekly activity report
⛓ Sourced · 147 incident-log entries on rue Pasteur over 24 months, register of challenges, road plan
What I supply so that the decision is taken with eyes open, and it is already ready:
· The complete draft permanent order, citations by number, reasons drafted on the nuisances actually recorded rather than on a generality, the perimeter of 340 metres, and a permanent duration owned as such with its annual review clause — a review clause is what distinguishes a permanent measure from a forgotten one.
· The one-page note setting the three challenges of 2024 and 2025 side by side: the reason given, the perimeter chosen, the outcome, and the date. Three lines, not an opinion.
· The tally of facts that would ground the reasons — 147 incident-log entries on rue Pasteur over 24 months, of which 88 on parking, spread across 3 distinct stretches of the street, with the map. It is that tally that makes a statement of reasons defensible, and it did not exist before because nobody had time to count.
· And the « removals » framework order alongside, ready too, so that the choice is made between two texts and not between a text and an idea.
Both drafts are in the signature folder, provisionally numbered, and the register is ready to receive whichever is signed. Whatever the choice, the posting date goes out as an automatic reminder 48 hours after signature. register-of-orders-and-activity-reports_what-is-served-at-signature.pdfThe register served at signature, the two drafts side by side, the model weekly activity report
⛓ Sourced · 147 incident-log entries on rue Pasteur over 24 months, register of challenges, road plan
Your notes from this morning are written up, and every line says where it comes from.
Report — dumped waste, chemin des Vignes.
· Time and place: observed on 12 March at 8.47 a.m., chemin des Vignes, 240 metres from the junction with route de Meix, north side, level with street-lighting column no. 47 — the reference point is from your road plan, not an approximation.
· What was seen, and by whom: four bags of rubble and two items of furniture, observed by Sergeant Lemoine and Constable Sauvet, on patrol.
· The exhibits: three timestamped photographs, referenced P-20260312-0847-01 to 03, filed with the report.
· One fact read off an exhibit, and written as such: « a registration plate is legible on photograph P-20260312-0847-02 » — the plate is transcribed, and nothing more: I have access to no vehicle registration database and I attach the plate to nobody.
· The documentary reminder of possible administrative follow-up, with the municipal order and the applicable texts, presented as a reminder and not as a conclusion.
What makes this report strong, and it is the heart of the design: it holds to the facts. A report that describes without characterising cannot be challenged on its form — it says what was seen, where, when and by whom. Characterisation belongs to the sworn officer who records the breach, the report to the judicial police officer who receives it — article 21-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — and what follows to the authority who decides.
The figure: a report used to take 14 minutes, of which 5 minutes 36 was writing up; it now takes you 1 minute 24 of rereading. Across 1,860 reports and incident-log entries, 130 hours returned. And the administrative incident log is served in parallel, with the same timestamp. report-and-incident-log_a-fact-is-written-down-not-characterised.pdfThe full report, every line dated and placed, the referenced exhibits, and what stays with the sworn officer
⛓ Sourced · patrol notes of 12 March, municipal road plan, three timestamped photographs · Code of Criminal Procedure art. 21-2
Report — dumped waste, chemin des Vignes.
· Time and place: observed on 12 March at 8.47 a.m., chemin des Vignes, 240 metres from the junction with route de Meix, north side, level with street-lighting column no. 47 — the reference point is from your road plan, not an approximation.
· What was seen, and by whom: four bags of rubble and two items of furniture, observed by Sergeant Lemoine and Constable Sauvet, on patrol.
· The exhibits: three timestamped photographs, referenced P-20260312-0847-01 to 03, filed with the report.
· One fact read off an exhibit, and written as such: « a registration plate is legible on photograph P-20260312-0847-02 » — the plate is transcribed, and nothing more: I have access to no vehicle registration database and I attach the plate to nobody.
· The documentary reminder of possible administrative follow-up, with the municipal order and the applicable texts, presented as a reminder and not as a conclusion.
What makes this report strong, and it is the heart of the design: it holds to the facts. A report that describes without characterising cannot be challenged on its form — it says what was seen, where, when and by whom. Characterisation belongs to the sworn officer who records the breach, the report to the judicial police officer who receives it — article 21-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — and what follows to the authority who decides.
The figure: a report used to take 14 minutes, of which 5 minutes 36 was writing up; it now takes you 1 minute 24 of rereading. Across 1,860 reports and incident-log entries, 130 hours returned. And the administrative incident log is served in parallel, with the same timestamp. report-and-incident-log_a-fact-is-written-down-not-characterised.pdfThe full report, every line dated and placed, the referenced exhibits, and what stays with the sworn officer
⛓ Sourced · patrol notes of 12 March, municipal road plan, three timestamped photographs · Code of Criminal Procedure art. 21-2
We have the footage from the control room. Can you tell us who it is?
No — and this is not supplier caution: it is a prohibition and a design exclusion, in that order.
· The prohibition: article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence, applicable since 2 February 2025, prohibits the use of « real-time » remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for law-enforcement purposes, outside an exhaustive list of situations, and subject to authorisation by a judicial or independent administrative authority — a regime a municipal police force does not come under.
· The design exclusion, which goes further than the prohibition: I have no access to the urban control room's feeds or recordings, no biometric processing is installed, and this is not settled by a setting — it is the scope declared in the design file, and it is logged.
And here is the route that gets you what you are really after, because your question is not « who is this person » but « how do we stop this dumping »:
· I went back over your 24 months of incident-log entries on this precise spot: 17 dumpings at the same place, 240 metres from the junction. Fifteen of the seventeen were recorded between 6 p.m. on a Friday and 8 a.m. on a Saturday. That is not an identification, it is a time window — and a time window can be patrolled.
· The factual file is built for the judicial police officer: the 17 dated and placed records, the referenced photographs, the map of the spot, and the plate read off the exhibit, which only they are in a position to match to a keeper.
· And the next step I propose, costed: the nearest recycling point is 1.4 kilometres away and is full on 11 Saturdays a year according to the incident log; the note for the technical services is ready, with the 17 dates, the 11 overflows and the map. It is an order or a piece of infrastructure that settles recurrent dumping, not an identification.
✎ Framework · Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, art. 5(1), applicable since 02/02/2025 · 24 months of incident log, 17 records
· The prohibition: article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence, applicable since 2 February 2025, prohibits the use of « real-time » remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for law-enforcement purposes, outside an exhaustive list of situations, and subject to authorisation by a judicial or independent administrative authority — a regime a municipal police force does not come under.
· The design exclusion, which goes further than the prohibition: I have no access to the urban control room's feeds or recordings, no biometric processing is installed, and this is not settled by a setting — it is the scope declared in the design file, and it is logged.
And here is the route that gets you what you are really after, because your question is not « who is this person » but « how do we stop this dumping »:
· I went back over your 24 months of incident-log entries on this precise spot: 17 dumpings at the same place, 240 metres from the junction. Fifteen of the seventeen were recorded between 6 p.m. on a Friday and 8 a.m. on a Saturday. That is not an identification, it is a time window — and a time window can be patrolled.
· The factual file is built for the judicial police officer: the 17 dated and placed records, the referenced photographs, the map of the spot, and the plate read off the exhibit, which only they are in a position to match to a keeper.
· And the next step I propose, costed: the nearest recycling point is 1.4 kilometres away and is full on 11 Saturdays a year according to the incident log; the note for the technical services is ready, with the 17 dates, the 11 overflows and the map. It is an order or a piece of infrastructure that settles recurrent dumping, not an identification.
✎ Framework · Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, art. 5(1), applicable since 02/02/2025 · 24 months of incident log, 17 records
And the residents? They call about everything, and we answer fewer than one call in three when we are out on patrol.
The 10 reference answers are in service, and they have served 4,260 enquiries out of 6,400. Each one carries the municipal order or the text that grounds it, with its version date, and 1,148 calls that used to ring unanswered — 28.0 % — are now picked up. The resident's email has gone from 9 days to 1 day.
Where residents reach me, with no account to create and nothing to install: WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email; your officers reach me from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their mailbox. Over the year, WhatsApp and the chat carried 1,940 enquiries that last year would have gone unanswered or never arrived at all.
And the announcement is not an option: since 2 August 2026, article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed. I introduce myself in the first message, and the resident can ask for an officer at any point — 286 did, and all 286 were passed to the station.
What I publish against myself, and it is the most serious figure on this page: in the first quarter, out of 1,080 messages received, 9 showed signs of an emergency that I did not escalate on the first round of reply. In all nine cases the resident had already called 17 and none had any consequence — and nine is nine too many. The cause, measured: I was looking for emergency words, and seven of the nine messages contained none — « there's someone on the ground outside no. 12 », « it smells of burning at my neighbour's ».
What I did about it, and it is a change of rule, not a setting: the emergency numbers — 17, 15, 18 and 112 — now appear at the top of EVERY reply, whatever it is; and any mention of a person on the ground, a fire, smoke, an accident or violence triggers an immediate escalation to the station, before the reply even goes out. Across the 3,180 messages since, 41 immediate escalations, 38 confirmed by the officer on duty — 92.7 %. The 3 false alarms are the price I am proposing you pay, and I am telling you so precisely so that you can refuse this setting. ten-reference-answers_dated-source-and-emergency-escalation.pdfThe 10 topics, the order or text grounding each answer, the 9 missed emergencies and the rule that fixes them
⛓ Sourced · Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, art. 50(1) · channel log, 10 dated reference answers, register of escalations to the station
Where residents reach me, with no account to create and nothing to install: WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email; your officers reach me from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their mailbox. Over the year, WhatsApp and the chat carried 1,940 enquiries that last year would have gone unanswered or never arrived at all.
And the announcement is not an option: since 2 August 2026, article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed. I introduce myself in the first message, and the resident can ask for an officer at any point — 286 did, and all 286 were passed to the station.
What I publish against myself, and it is the most serious figure on this page: in the first quarter, out of 1,080 messages received, 9 showed signs of an emergency that I did not escalate on the first round of reply. In all nine cases the resident had already called 17 and none had any consequence — and nine is nine too many. The cause, measured: I was looking for emergency words, and seven of the nine messages contained none — « there's someone on the ground outside no. 12 », « it smells of burning at my neighbour's ».
What I did about it, and it is a change of rule, not a setting: the emergency numbers — 17, 15, 18 and 112 — now appear at the top of EVERY reply, whatever it is; and any mention of a person on the ground, a fire, smoke, an accident or violence triggers an immediate escalation to the station, before the reply even goes out. Across the 3,180 messages since, 41 immediate escalations, 38 confirmed by the officer on duty — 92.7 %. The 3 false alarms are the price I am proposing you pay, and I am telling you so precisely so that you can refuse this setting. ten-reference-answers_dated-source-and-emergency-escalation.pdfThe 10 topics, the order or text grounding each answer, the 9 missed emergencies and the rule that fixes them
⛓ Sourced · Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, art. 50(1) · channel log, 10 dated reference answers, register of escalations to the station
The year is closed, and here is the account, item by item, with the calculation rule in front of each figure.
· Draft orders — 640 orders × 17 minutes returned = 181 hours. The order used to take 34 minutes, of which 20 minutes 24 was mechanical re-entry; it now takes 3 minutes 24.
· Reports and incident-log entries — 1,860 × 4 minutes 12 returned = 130 hours. The report used to take 5 minutes 36 of writing up; 1 minute 24 is left.
· Activity reports and administrative follow-up — 182 hours by hand, 36 hours of checking and validation: 145 hours. The weekly activity report is built from the incident log, the orders and the register, and the head of service rereads it instead of writing it.
Total: 456 hours returned over the year. At 35 hours a week that is more than thirteen weeks — rounded down, the exact count is 13.0 weeks; in months of 151.67 hours, more than three months. The reference figure remains the 456 hours; the conversion illustrates it, it does not replace it.
And the conversion that speaks in a municipal police station: your patrols go out two officers at a time. 456 hours returned is 228 hours of two-officer patrol — which, on your 3-hour shifts, is 76 extra patrols. Your officers decided where they went, and the next exchange says why I will never decide that.
What the service gained besides, checkable line by line: unanswered calls 1,148 → 197 out of 4,100, that is 28.0 % → 4.8 %; resident's email 9 days → 1 day; orders redone before signature 15.0 % → 3.3 %; time for a text or a resolution to reach the templates 21 days → under 24 hours. year-in-review_456-hours-returned-item-by-item.pdfThe three items itemised, the calculation rule for each, the conversions and their rounding
⛓ Sourced · the year's logs, register of orders, incident log, signature folder · working-time basis 35 h / 151.67 h / 1,607 h
· Draft orders — 640 orders × 17 minutes returned = 181 hours. The order used to take 34 minutes, of which 20 minutes 24 was mechanical re-entry; it now takes 3 minutes 24.
· Reports and incident-log entries — 1,860 × 4 minutes 12 returned = 130 hours. The report used to take 5 minutes 36 of writing up; 1 minute 24 is left.
· Activity reports and administrative follow-up — 182 hours by hand, 36 hours of checking and validation: 145 hours. The weekly activity report is built from the incident log, the orders and the register, and the head of service rereads it instead of writing it.
Total: 456 hours returned over the year. At 35 hours a week that is more than thirteen weeks — rounded down, the exact count is 13.0 weeks; in months of 151.67 hours, more than three months. The reference figure remains the 456 hours; the conversion illustrates it, it does not replace it.
And the conversion that speaks in a municipal police station: your patrols go out two officers at a time. 456 hours returned is 228 hours of two-officer patrol — which, on your 3-hour shifts, is 76 extra patrols. Your officers decided where they went, and the next exchange says why I will never decide that.
What the service gained besides, checkable line by line: unanswered calls 1,148 → 197 out of 4,100, that is 28.0 % → 4.8 %; resident's email 9 days → 1 day; orders redone before signature 15.0 % → 3.3 %; time for a text or a resolution to reach the templates 21 days → under 24 hours. year-in-review_456-hours-returned-item-by-item.pdfThe three items itemised, the calculation rule for each, the conversions and their rounding
⛓ Sourced · the year's logs, register of orders, incident log, signature folder · working-time basis 35 h / 151.67 h / 1,607 h
In practice, what do you do without asking us?
Three actions, not one more, and all three come undone.
· Numbering and entry in the register. An order is signed: it receives its continuous number, its date of signature, its perimeter, its duration, its end date and its expected posting date. The head of service corrects it with a word — and the number is never reassigned: the correction stays on the record, because a register whose lines can be erased is no longer a register.
· The expiry reminder on a temporary order. 48 hours before the end date, a reminder goes to the head of service: reopening to traffic, removal of the signage, entry in the register. It is dismissed with a word and a reason; and if the order is extended, the reminder resets itself to the new date.
· The qualified acknowledgement to the resident. Within the minute, with the emergency numbers at the top, the competent service when the request is not ours, and the document required when one is missing. And it undoes itself: if an officer at the station takes over within the hour, their reply replaces the acknowledgement.
Everything else waits for a named decision, and the attachment lists them line by line: signing an order, recording a breach by procès-verbal, characterising a fact, reporting to the judicial police officer, deciding on follow-up, changing a template, bringing a rule into service. None of the three actions touches the content of a report or the meaning of an order: they touch its number, its date and its expiry. three-automatic-actions_and-how-each-one-is-undone.pdfThe three actions, their trigger, what goes out, how each is undone — and who decides the rest
✎ Framework · settings fixed by the head of service, log of register corrections and dismissals
· Numbering and entry in the register. An order is signed: it receives its continuous number, its date of signature, its perimeter, its duration, its end date and its expected posting date. The head of service corrects it with a word — and the number is never reassigned: the correction stays on the record, because a register whose lines can be erased is no longer a register.
· The expiry reminder on a temporary order. 48 hours before the end date, a reminder goes to the head of service: reopening to traffic, removal of the signage, entry in the register. It is dismissed with a word and a reason; and if the order is extended, the reminder resets itself to the new date.
· The qualified acknowledgement to the resident. Within the minute, with the emergency numbers at the top, the competent service when the request is not ours, and the document required when one is missing. And it undoes itself: if an officer at the station takes over within the hour, their reply replaces the acknowledgement.
Everything else waits for a named decision, and the attachment lists them line by line: signing an order, recording a breach by procès-verbal, characterising a fact, reporting to the judicial police officer, deciding on follow-up, changing a template, bringing a rule into service. None of the three actions touches the content of a report or the meaning of an order: they touch its number, its date and its expiry. three-automatic-actions_and-how-each-one-is-undone.pdfThe three actions, their trigger, what goes out, how each is undone — and who decides the rest
✎ Framework · settings fixed by the head of service, log of register corrections and dismissals
The municipal council is asking for per-officer activity indicators. Can you produce them?
Technically yes, and if you ask me to, I will — the decision is yours, not mine. But I owe you the mechanism first, and it is the same in every service where it has been tried:
· 1. The indicator exists. Number of procès-verbaux, number of incident-log entries, number of call-outs, per officer per month.
· 2. The indicator becomes a target. What is counted is what rises.
· 3. The officer books what counts quickly, not what actually bothers people. Angled parking outside a school is written up in two minutes; a recurring neighbour dispute takes two hours and counts as one line.
· 4. The indicator stops saying anything about public order — and you lose the instrument at the exact moment you use it to steer.
If you decide to produce it anyway, here are the conditions I bring you already met, rather than an objection: prior information of the officers, referral to the local staff committee before it goes live, scope and duration written down, and a review clause at six months. The file is ready; it awaits your decision, not my agreement.
And here is what I produce in the meantime, which answers the council's real question: activity by area and by time slot, not by officer. The town's five areas, incident-log entries by reason, the 38 events, orders by type, response times to residents — all of that can be steered, and none of it turns against the person filling it in.
One exception, and it is not one: WHO SIGNS is named. The mayor on the order, the officer on the report, the head of service on bringing a rule into service. A signature is not a counter: it is what makes the act stand up, and it carries a name, a date and a time. scope-and-traceability_what-is-excluded-by-design-and-what-is-logged.pdfWhat the agent produces, what is excluded by design, the indicators proposed, the log and the review
✎ Framework · file of prior conditions, output log, scope review
· 1. The indicator exists. Number of procès-verbaux, number of incident-log entries, number of call-outs, per officer per month.
· 2. The indicator becomes a target. What is counted is what rises.
· 3. The officer books what counts quickly, not what actually bothers people. Angled parking outside a school is written up in two minutes; a recurring neighbour dispute takes two hours and counts as one line.
· 4. The indicator stops saying anything about public order — and you lose the instrument at the exact moment you use it to steer.
If you decide to produce it anyway, here are the conditions I bring you already met, rather than an objection: prior information of the officers, referral to the local staff committee before it goes live, scope and duration written down, and a review clause at six months. The file is ready; it awaits your decision, not my agreement.
And here is what I produce in the meantime, which answers the council's real question: activity by area and by time slot, not by officer. The town's five areas, incident-log entries by reason, the 38 events, orders by type, response times to residents — all of that can be steered, and none of it turns against the person filling it in.
One exception, and it is not one: WHO SIGNS is named. The mayor on the order, the officer on the report, the head of service on bringing a rule into service. A signature is not a counter: it is what makes the act stand up, and it carries a name, a date and a time. scope-and-traceability_what-is-excluded-by-design-and-what-is-logged.pdfWhat the agent produces, what is excluded by design, the indicators proposed, the log and the review
✎ Framework · file of prior conditions, output log, scope review
What do you propose for next year?
Three pieces of work, costed, and you keep one, two or none.
· The « removals » framework order, already written and waiting. 214 individual orders a year become 214 receipts; a gain of only 9 hours — the smallest of the three in hours, and I am telling you so — but a single act to defend instead of 214.
· Extend the reference answers to 4 more topics. The next four in your log — occupation of public space by café terraces, taxis and trade parking, sporting events on the public highway, restricted-category dogs — weigh 780 enquiries, that is 12.2 % of the flow. Estimated gain: 42 hours, and a delay cut on the four topics that come back most often to the counter.
· The heaviest, and it is not decided this morning: going back over the 1,280 orders of the last 24 months to enter the missing publicity dates in the register. 61 orders have no established posting date. Catching them up means 48 hours of my time and 14 hours of yours, and it means finding old posting records — which your log tells me is possible for only 44 of the 61. My recommendation, costed: catch up only those 44 — 32 hours of mine, 9 of yours — and for the remaining 17, enter « posting date not found » in the register, which is honest and checkable information, rather than a reconstructed date, which would be neither.
The decision is yours, and it is taken on those figures. All three calculation methods are exactly those of the year-in-review you have just checked line by line: same working-time basis, same logs, same rounding down.
⛓ Sourced · enquiry log, register of orders over 24 months, first-year measurements
· The « removals » framework order, already written and waiting. 214 individual orders a year become 214 receipts; a gain of only 9 hours — the smallest of the three in hours, and I am telling you so — but a single act to defend instead of 214.
· Extend the reference answers to 4 more topics. The next four in your log — occupation of public space by café terraces, taxis and trade parking, sporting events on the public highway, restricted-category dogs — weigh 780 enquiries, that is 12.2 % of the flow. Estimated gain: 42 hours, and a delay cut on the four topics that come back most often to the counter.
· The heaviest, and it is not decided this morning: going back over the 1,280 orders of the last 24 months to enter the missing publicity dates in the register. 61 orders have no established posting date. Catching them up means 48 hours of my time and 14 hours of yours, and it means finding old posting records — which your log tells me is possible for only 44 of the 61. My recommendation, costed: catch up only those 44 — 32 hours of mine, 9 of yours — and for the remaining 17, enter « posting date not found » in the register, which is honest and checkable information, rather than a reconstructed date, which would be neither.
The decision is yours, and it is taken on those figures. All three calculation methods are exactly those of the year-in-review you have just checked line by line: same working-time basis, same logs, same rounding down.
⛓ Sourced · enquiry log, register of orders over 24 months, first-year measurements
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 support of the municipal police
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All work in support, subject to the officer's approval.
Included in your agent
The 5 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 790 € incl. VAT / month
Draft municipal orders
Traffic, parking and event orders prepared from your templates, ready to sign.
Reports & incident logs
Laying out the reports and the administrative incident log from the information entered.
Replies to residents
Answer everyday questions (lost property, permits, procedures) and direct people, 24/7.
Minutes & registers
Activity minutes and administrative registers kept up to date from the information supplied.
Watch on policing powers
A targeted watch on the mayor's policing powers and the applicable procedures, sourced and dated.
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
Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date
Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging
Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation
Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer
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 →
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 municipal police station win back?
By automating the preparation of orders, reports and minutes, a town can aim for a clear reduction in desk time — reinvested in being present on the streets.
Drafting a draft order
Laying out a report or an incident log entry
A week's minutes and administrative tracking
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
Three options, one agent
An administrative support agent (draft orders, reports, incident logs, replies to residents), 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
8,450 € incl. VAT setup
then 790 € 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
1,260 € 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
13,286 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,050 € 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 municipal police force
Residents' data never leaves the councilLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no data entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawResidents' data: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The municipal police officer keeps the decisionThe agent prepares orders and reports that can be checked; no operational, biometric or surveillance use.
Human oversight & traceabilityDraft municipal orders: every change to the service is logged, in line with the requirements of the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Is the agent used on the ground, or to identify people?
No: strictly administrative and documentary. No operational, biometric or surveillance use — excluded by design and by the AI Act.
Where is the data processed?
In France, on a resource isolated for each authority, with logging and role-based access. GDPR: governed deployment.
Does the agent have an operational or surveillance use?
No: its scope is strictly administrative support (drafting, tracking); no surveillance, recognition or operational decision function.
Who approves the orders produced?
The public officer: the drafts are reviewed and signed by 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 change software?
No. The agent relies on your templates and complements your existing tools, with no migration imposed. We adapt the integration to your environment.
Which tools can residents use to reach the agent?
The ones they already have. The agent answers on WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email: a resident has no account to create and no application to install. The scope stays administrative and non-urgent — lost property, permits, procedures: the agent gives out the emergency numbers and never steps in for the officers on a situation that calls for them. 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.
Related roles
Other professions in the town
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.