● Public sector — Drafting acts & letters
The AI agent for administrative writers: a compliant first version, the decision stays yours
Drafting orders, council decisions, notes and reply letters takes up a considerable share of writers' time — often starting again from a template, a precedent, a text to piece together. Your AI agent produces a compliant first version from your own templates and style guide. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — administrative data stays under control. The writer reviews, makes it legally sound and decides.
Hosted in France
Administrative data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Administrative writing assistant · hosted in France
Prepare a draft highway order for a temporary closure of rue des Écoles from 14 to 16 May, using our template, with the regulatory citations.
Draft order written on your “temporary traffic order” template. I have inserted the usual legal citations (local government code, highway code, the mayor's policing powers) and an article placing signage at the applicant's expense.
2 points to check: the exact diversion perimeter and the date of notification to residents.
⛓ Source · your templates + earlier council decisions and orders
2 points to check: the exact diversion perimeter and the date of notification to residents.
⛓ Source · your templates + earlier council decisions and orders
Add the standard reply for a resident who challenges the closure.
Reply letter prepared: a reminder of the legal basis (policing powers, site safety), the limited duration, and continued pedestrian and emergency access. Courteous tone, in line with your style guide.
Draft order + letter ready for review — the writer approves and signs.
✎ Action · letter ready for review — the writer decides
Draft order + letter ready for review — the writer approves and signs.
✎ Action · letter ready for review — the writer decides
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 writer decidesThe agent assists, never signs alone
✦ In brief
In a local authority or a public body, a Blue Lemon Agent agent produces a compliant first version of your orders, council decisions, notes and standard letters from your templates, your style guide and your earlier acts. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: administrative data and the public's personal data are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Drafting time is redirected towards legal soundness and the service delivered. Legal soundness and the signature remain with the writer and the competent departments. The AI agent assists, the public officer decides.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
9
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision taken without human approval
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
The context
Why AI matters to drafting departments — and why they hesitate
The public expects faster and better-reasoned answers, and departments produce a growing volume of acts and letters. But available time is mechanically reduced by drafting and reviewing — and the data involved engages the authority's liability.
! The issue
The department is caught between people who want clear, quick answers and an ever-growing drafting workload (orders, council decisions, notes, complaints). Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting acts in preparation, the public's personal data and sensitive administrative information to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to a public service if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, legal soundness and signature reserved to the writer: the time saved on drafting is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the public officer, but to give them back time for the reasoning behind the acts and for the service to the public.
The decisive point
Confidentiality of administrative data: sovereignty & compliance
A drafting department handles acts in preparation and the public's personal data. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, file by file.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the authority: no act in preparation leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — your data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of acts in preparation to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per entity
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your authority or institution.
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 bodyVal d'Ombrée agglomeration authority — 28 municipalities, 46,000 residents
- Sector
- Agglomeration authority — waste, water and sanitation, transport, housing and economic development; three administrative sites and 28 member municipalities
- Headcount
- 310 staff, including an assembly and correspondence unit of 6 people: 4 writers, one unit manager and one apprentice
- Public served
- 46,000 residents and 28 member municipalities; 6 community councils and 8 committees a year
- Order of magnitude
- 630 records a year — 420 decrees and 210 resolutions —, 1,850 reply letters to residents, 2,400 recurring questions received by telephone and e-mail, 22 procurement consultations
- Tools in place
- Records software and electronic signature folder, electronic document management, dematerialisation platform, nine years of records filed by financial year — the agent connects in read-only, nothing is replaced or migrated
- Who decides
- The president signs the records, vice-presidents sign under delegation; the assembly unit manager validates every output before it leaves; the legal affairs director secures the most binding records
- The points to improve
- A resident complaint waits 21 days on average; the first draft of a decree takes 90 of the 150 minutes the record requires; 9 of the unit's 62 templates cite a signing delegation that has been replaced; and 1,680 of the 2,400 questions received concern the same 14 subjects
At Val d'Ombrée, six people write everything the authority signs: presidential decrees, council resolutions, briefing notes to elected members, replies to residents, administrative procurement documents. Volume rises with each transferred competence, the unit's headcount does not move, and the manager spends eight days a month in session or in committee — that is where letters wait. The agent runs in local inference on a machine belonging to the authority, reads the nine years of records without ever writing into them, and sends nothing out without a person's validation. The exchanges that follow cover one year, from the template overhaul to the report presented to the executive board.
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.
Administrative writing assistant · hosted in France
I reread your nine years of records over the weekend — 3,180 decrees, 1,640 resolutions, 62 unit templates — and I have drawn out a gap your cabinets were carrying without anyone having the time to see it.
The measured gap, and it governs everything else: 9 of your 62 templates cite a signing delegation that has been replaced. A signing delegation is the decree by which the president authorises a vice-president or a member of staff to sign in their name, over a precise scope; it is what gives the record the authority of the person signing it. Your delegations were redrawn after the vice-presidencies were renewed; nine templates went on citing the previous ones. The reply template for the waste department still cites the delegation of a vice-president who no longer holds that competence, and the collection decree template cites a repealed delegation. These are not drafting mistakes: they are templates that aged while nobody had the time to reopen them.
What that weighs today, on the three items you can check in your own logs:
· The first draft of a decree or a resolution takes 60 % of the record's time — 90 minutes of the 150 the record requires, from file received to signature.
· Drafting a reply to a complaint: 37 %, that is 18 minutes 30 of the 50 the letter requires.
· Answering a recurring resident question: 10 %, that is 2 minutes 30 of the 25 minutes the request requires.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already written: I rewrote the 9 templates last night, each set against the signing delegation in force today, with the replaced line and the replacing line side by side. What that would have changed over the past year, since that is the only measure that counts: the 214 waste department letters would have gone out under the signature of the vice-president actually competent, and the 61 collection decrees would have cited the delegation in force on their date.
What I do with the three items once the templates are settled: I build every record on your updated templates, and you keep what only you can do — checking, giving reasons, and obtaining the signature. The first draft drops from 60 % to 18 %, the complaint reply from 37 % to 10 %, the recurring question from 10 % to 8 %: 90 minutes → 27, 18 minutes 30 → 5, 2 minutes 30 → 2.
The next step takes twenty minutes: tomorrow morning you reread the three templates that weigh most, and I present them to you already rewritten. The legal affairs director settles the version, the president signs it, and it is in service that evening — it is that signature that makes the template enforceable against a resident who would challenge it, and it is the only act I leave to you. template-inventory_62-of-which-9-to-realign.pdf62 templates reread, 9 rewritten, the delegation in force alongside
⛓ Sourced · 9 years of authority records, successive signing delegation decrees, 62 unit templates, 9 rewritten versions
The measured gap, and it governs everything else: 9 of your 62 templates cite a signing delegation that has been replaced. A signing delegation is the decree by which the president authorises a vice-president or a member of staff to sign in their name, over a precise scope; it is what gives the record the authority of the person signing it. Your delegations were redrawn after the vice-presidencies were renewed; nine templates went on citing the previous ones. The reply template for the waste department still cites the delegation of a vice-president who no longer holds that competence, and the collection decree template cites a repealed delegation. These are not drafting mistakes: they are templates that aged while nobody had the time to reopen them.
What that weighs today, on the three items you can check in your own logs:
· The first draft of a decree or a resolution takes 60 % of the record's time — 90 minutes of the 150 the record requires, from file received to signature.
· Drafting a reply to a complaint: 37 %, that is 18 minutes 30 of the 50 the letter requires.
· Answering a recurring resident question: 10 %, that is 2 minutes 30 of the 25 minutes the request requires.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already written: I rewrote the 9 templates last night, each set against the signing delegation in force today, with the replaced line and the replacing line side by side. What that would have changed over the past year, since that is the only measure that counts: the 214 waste department letters would have gone out under the signature of the vice-president actually competent, and the 61 collection decrees would have cited the delegation in force on their date.
What I do with the three items once the templates are settled: I build every record on your updated templates, and you keep what only you can do — checking, giving reasons, and obtaining the signature. The first draft drops from 60 % to 18 %, the complaint reply from 37 % to 10 %, the recurring question from 10 % to 8 %: 90 minutes → 27, 18 minutes 30 → 5, 2 minutes 30 → 2.
The next step takes twenty minutes: tomorrow morning you reread the three templates that weigh most, and I present them to you already rewritten. The legal affairs director settles the version, the president signs it, and it is in service that evening — it is that signature that makes the template enforceable against a resident who would challenge it, and it is the only act I leave to you. template-inventory_62-of-which-9-to-realign.pdf62 templates reread, 9 rewritten, the delegation in force alongside
⛓ Sourced · 9 years of authority records, successive signing delegation decrees, 62 unit templates, 9 rewritten versions
There are six of us and the post never stops. I do not have a week to spend on templates. Where do I start?
With three templates, not sixty-two — and I have ranked them by the time they give back to your staff, not alphabetically.
What the count of your nine years of records says:
· The temporary collection decree: 61 uses a year out of 420 decrees — and it is the one whose cited delegation has been repealed.
· The reply letter for waste charge and water bill complaints: 640 a year — more than a third of all your letters come out of a single template.
· The briefing note to elected members accompanying a draft resolution: 210 a year, one per resolution, and it is the output your writers most often restart from scratch.
Those three templates produce 911 of the 2,480 documents your 62 templates issue each year: three templates out of sixty-two, more than a third of production. The other 59 will hold until autumn without changing anything at all to the unit's workload.
What I bring you in those twenty minutes, and that nobody has the time to do: the three updated versions, already written, the governing delegation decree alongside with its date, and the number of documents each would have issued last year alone — 61, 640 and 210. You approve or you correct in a word. I save you the writing and the cross-checking; the decision remains the authority's — and I hand it back to you in twenty minutes instead of a week, complete and dated.
And there is a second effect your writers will see on day one: I have indexed the nine years of the archive. « The last collection decree taken for the municipality of Bruère » takes me four seconds — the record, its date, its number, the template it came from and the delegation it cited. Across the 630 records of the year, finding a precedent took 14 minutes on average: that is 147 hours going back into the reasoning of records.
The next step I propose: that after those three, I flag any template touched by a new delegation decree, and write its updated version in the night that follows its signature. Your 62 templates will stop ageing in silence, and this work will not have to be redone at the next renewal — it will cost you nothing more than one reread per delegation decree, that is two per term. unit-workload_where-the-time-goes.pdf2,480 documents a year, 3 templates for more than a third
⛓ Sourced · count of records by template over 9 years, assembly unit log, 3 rewritten versions, archive index
What the count of your nine years of records says:
· The temporary collection decree: 61 uses a year out of 420 decrees — and it is the one whose cited delegation has been repealed.
· The reply letter for waste charge and water bill complaints: 640 a year — more than a third of all your letters come out of a single template.
· The briefing note to elected members accompanying a draft resolution: 210 a year, one per resolution, and it is the output your writers most often restart from scratch.
Those three templates produce 911 of the 2,480 documents your 62 templates issue each year: three templates out of sixty-two, more than a third of production. The other 59 will hold until autumn without changing anything at all to the unit's workload.
What I bring you in those twenty minutes, and that nobody has the time to do: the three updated versions, already written, the governing delegation decree alongside with its date, and the number of documents each would have issued last year alone — 61, 640 and 210. You approve or you correct in a word. I save you the writing and the cross-checking; the decision remains the authority's — and I hand it back to you in twenty minutes instead of a week, complete and dated.
And there is a second effect your writers will see on day one: I have indexed the nine years of the archive. « The last collection decree taken for the municipality of Bruère » takes me four seconds — the record, its date, its number, the template it came from and the delegation it cited. Across the 630 records of the year, finding a precedent took 14 minutes on average: that is 147 hours going back into the reasoning of records.
The next step I propose: that after those three, I flag any template touched by a new delegation decree, and write its updated version in the night that follows its signature. Your 62 templates will stop ageing in silence, and this work will not have to be redone at the next renewal — it will cost you nothing more than one reread per delegation decree, that is two per term. unit-workload_where-the-time-goes.pdf2,480 documents a year, 3 templates for more than a third
⛓ Sourced · count of records by template over 9 years, assembly unit log, 3 rewritten versions, archive index
All of this assumes you read our records in preparation, our files and residents' letters. Where do they go?
They go nowhere. I run in local inference on a machine belonging to the authority, and nothing I read leaves your network.
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the text of a record in preparation or of a resident complaint crosses no external network to be processed. If the authority prefers not to host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Val d'Ombrée — no pooling with another authority, which is the condition of your service's continuity.
What that changes, point by point:
· Resident data trains no model, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only on your records software and your document management, and the technical account through which I read has no right to write — that is firmer than a promise, because it can be checked with one command.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the function: a writer in the correspondence unit does not open human resources files, and the apprentice does not open the legal department's records in preparation. 9 roles for the departments concerned, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Full log: who asked what, when, and what I produced.
The act the law reserves to a person, and it is what gives your records their value: the signature belongs to the president and to the holders of delegation. Everything leading up to it, I have already done: the draft is built on your updated template, checked point by point against the delegation in force on its date, and it comes back with its control note — what is in order, what is missing, and the internal document that requires it. It is the signature that makes the record challengeable before the court, therefore defensible — a record nobody had signed could be challenged by nobody, and would be worth nothing.
The figure that sums all this up: 0 resident data left the authority's network, processing in the EU targeted, across 1,004 traced outputs since go-live.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the register sheet your data protection officer and the executive board will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes three days to reconstruct; the first version is already written and attached. technical-framework_where-records-in-preparation-live.pdfLocal inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account rights, access log, first version of the register sheet
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the text of a record in preparation or of a resident complaint crosses no external network to be processed. If the authority prefers not to host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Val d'Ombrée — no pooling with another authority, which is the condition of your service's continuity.
What that changes, point by point:
· Resident data trains no model, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only on your records software and your document management, and the technical account through which I read has no right to write — that is firmer than a promise, because it can be checked with one command.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access — rights follow the function: a writer in the correspondence unit does not open human resources files, and the apprentice does not open the legal department's records in preparation. 9 roles for the departments concerned, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Full log: who asked what, when, and what I produced.
The act the law reserves to a person, and it is what gives your records their value: the signature belongs to the president and to the holders of delegation. Everything leading up to it, I have already done: the draft is built on your updated template, checked point by point against the delegation in force on its date, and it comes back with its control note — what is in order, what is missing, and the internal document that requires it. It is the signature that makes the record challengeable before the court, therefore defensible — a record nobody had signed could be challenged by nobody, and would be worth nothing.
The figure that sums all this up: 0 resident data left the authority's network, processing in the EU targeted, across 1,004 traced outputs since go-live.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the register sheet your data protection officer and the executive board will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes three days to reconstruct; the first version is already written and attached. technical-framework_where-records-in-preparation-live.pdfLocal inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account rights, access log, first version of the register sheet
Collection days are changing in three municipalities during the bridge works. I need the presidential decree, and I could not find last year's from the previous site.
The draft decree is ready, built on your updated template, and I am giving you the authority's four precedents so you can compare.
What the draft carries, and where it comes from:
· The citations of your template, identical — citations are the texts and decisions a decree lists at its head to state where it draws its authority from; they are what a record is defended by. I have restored the one your four precedents carried and that last year's had lost: the resolution by which the council entrusted collection to the authority. It is marked as an addition and comes out in one click if you judge it unnecessary.
· The signing delegation in force today, that of the vice-president responsible for waste, checked against the delegation decree and not against habit.
· The reasoning: bridge closure, collection route impassable, duration set on the works dates as they appear in the municipality's traffic decree.
· The scope and substitute days, taken from last year's works — the three municipalities, Tuesday to Thursday, for seven weeks — and resident information through the inter-municipal bulletin and by posting, as in your four precedents.
Two fields are waiting for you, and that is deliberate: the decree number and the date of signature — the only two entries that bind the authority, and the vice-president enters them in ten seconds.
What I flag without being asked: last year's decree was not transmitted to the State representative; the three before it were. This is not a fault I am recording, it is a habit that was lost when the unit went from seven people to six — and the transmission slip is written, decree attached, ready to leave with the signature.
The time this shifts: the first draft goes from 60 % to 18 % of the record's time — from 90 minutes to 27. Across 630 records a year, that is 661 hours going back into the reasoning of records and service to residents.
The next step I propose: that the three most frequent decrees — temporary collection, water use restriction, occupation of a community facility — build themselves as soon as the request reaches the unit, draft and transmission slip included. You approve the principle once, and every request goes back out with its draft the same day. draft-decree_collection-during-the-bridge-works.pdfCitations kept and one restored, 2 fields left to the signatory
⛓ Sourced · updated decree template, delegation decree in force, 4 previous decrees of the same type, municipal traffic decree
What the draft carries, and where it comes from:
· The citations of your template, identical — citations are the texts and decisions a decree lists at its head to state where it draws its authority from; they are what a record is defended by. I have restored the one your four precedents carried and that last year's had lost: the resolution by which the council entrusted collection to the authority. It is marked as an addition and comes out in one click if you judge it unnecessary.
· The signing delegation in force today, that of the vice-president responsible for waste, checked against the delegation decree and not against habit.
· The reasoning: bridge closure, collection route impassable, duration set on the works dates as they appear in the municipality's traffic decree.
· The scope and substitute days, taken from last year's works — the three municipalities, Tuesday to Thursday, for seven weeks — and resident information through the inter-municipal bulletin and by posting, as in your four precedents.
Two fields are waiting for you, and that is deliberate: the decree number and the date of signature — the only two entries that bind the authority, and the vice-president enters them in ten seconds.
What I flag without being asked: last year's decree was not transmitted to the State representative; the three before it were. This is not a fault I am recording, it is a habit that was lost when the unit went from seven people to six — and the transmission slip is written, decree attached, ready to leave with the signature.
The time this shifts: the first draft goes from 60 % to 18 % of the record's time — from 90 minutes to 27. Across 630 records a year, that is 661 hours going back into the reasoning of records and service to residents.
The next step I propose: that the three most frequent decrees — temporary collection, water use restriction, occupation of a community facility — build themselves as soon as the request reaches the unit, draft and transmission slip included. You approve the principle once, and every request goes back out with its draft the same day. draft-decree_collection-during-the-bridge-works.pdfCitations kept and one restored, 2 fields left to the signatory
⛓ Sourced · updated decree template, delegation decree in force, 4 previous decrees of the same type, municipal traffic decree
The June council has to resolve on the special waste charge for businesses. I need the draft resolution and the briefing note to elected members.
Both are ready, and the briefing note carries three costed rate scenarios — the council will arbitrate on figures, not on an impression.
The draft resolution follows your template: subject, statement of reasons, operative part article by article, and the reference to the 2024 resolution it replaces — that is the one in force, and it is the one three of your agreements no longer reflected.
What the note establishes first, from your own documents:
· 318 businesses served last year, of which 212 producing under 1,100 litres a week and 106 above.
· The real cost borne by the authority — collection, treatment, bin depreciation — as it appears in your payment orders for the year. I do not estimate it: I add it up, and every line points to its payment order.
· The rates resolved by the five comparable agglomeration authorities in the region, taken from their published resolutions, each with its date. These are public facts, not a comparison I invent.
What I do in addition, and that nobody has the time to do: I put three scenarios on the table, each costed on the 318 businesses of the past year — revenue, share of real cost covered, position of the authority among its five comparables:
· A — roll-over: revenue unchanged, real cost would stay covered at 68 %, and the gap with comparables would keep widening.
· B — alignment on real cost: 100 % coverage, and 47 of the 212 small producers would see their charge exceed that of the five comparables.
· C — two-band scale, small producer held, large producer raised: 94 % coverage, no small producer above the comparables, the effort borne by the 106 producers above 1,100 litres.
None of the three is my opinion: they are three calculations made on your payment orders and on published resolutions, and the council can ask me for a fourth in session, costed before the item ends. The rate itself is voted — and it is the vote that makes it enforceable against a business that would challenge it, just as it guarantees equal treatment between two firms of the same volume.
The next step I propose: that the special charge agreement be generated from the resolution in force, from the day after the vote. A rate can no longer be out of date on an agreement, since it will come from the resolution itself — and next year's 318 agreements will come out correct without a writer having to think about it. draft-resolution_special-charge-and-briefing-note.pdfOperative part, briefing note, 3 costed scenarios
⛓ Sourced · resolution template, payment orders for the year, published resolutions of 5 comparable authorities, register of businesses served
The draft resolution follows your template: subject, statement of reasons, operative part article by article, and the reference to the 2024 resolution it replaces — that is the one in force, and it is the one three of your agreements no longer reflected.
What the note establishes first, from your own documents:
· 318 businesses served last year, of which 212 producing under 1,100 litres a week and 106 above.
· The real cost borne by the authority — collection, treatment, bin depreciation — as it appears in your payment orders for the year. I do not estimate it: I add it up, and every line points to its payment order.
· The rates resolved by the five comparable agglomeration authorities in the region, taken from their published resolutions, each with its date. These are public facts, not a comparison I invent.
What I do in addition, and that nobody has the time to do: I put three scenarios on the table, each costed on the 318 businesses of the past year — revenue, share of real cost covered, position of the authority among its five comparables:
· A — roll-over: revenue unchanged, real cost would stay covered at 68 %, and the gap with comparables would keep widening.
· B — alignment on real cost: 100 % coverage, and 47 of the 212 small producers would see their charge exceed that of the five comparables.
· C — two-band scale, small producer held, large producer raised: 94 % coverage, no small producer above the comparables, the effort borne by the 106 producers above 1,100 litres.
None of the three is my opinion: they are three calculations made on your payment orders and on published resolutions, and the council can ask me for a fourth in session, costed before the item ends. The rate itself is voted — and it is the vote that makes it enforceable against a business that would challenge it, just as it guarantees equal treatment between two firms of the same volume.
The next step I propose: that the special charge agreement be generated from the resolution in force, from the day after the vote. A rate can no longer be out of date on an agreement, since it will come from the resolution itself — and next year's 318 agreements will come out correct without a writer having to think about it. draft-resolution_special-charge-and-briefing-note.pdfOperative part, briefing note, 3 costed scenarios
⛓ Sourced · resolution template, payment orders for the year, published resolutions of 5 comparable authorities, register of businesses served
The heaviest item is the community council minutes. They come out seventeen days after the session, and the mayors call us in the meantime.
The decision record is available the same evening, and the draft minutes the next morning — your writers correct them, they no longer draft them.
The decision record is the short list of what the council settled, point by point; the minutes are the full document that also reports the discussion. The first matters to the 28 mayors that same evening, the second matters to residents.
What I produce after a three-hour session:
· The decision record, in the order of the agenda: each item, the outcome of the vote, the count — for, against, abstentions — and the members who took no part in the vote, which is the point most often forgotten when writing fifteen days later.
· The draft minutes, in the council's usual form, with contributions reported rather than transcribed word for word.
One rule I hold, and it protects the authority: what binds carries a name, what explores does not. Votes, resolutions and decisions are attributed by name, because they must be. Hesitations and exchanges in session are reported without names, except where a member asks for their contribution to be recorded in the minutes — and I flag every time they asked in session.
And the resolution back-schedule, which I wrote and which I keep: it is the reverse calendar of a council item — which document must be ready by which date for the resolution to be taken in due form. Convening notice and briefing note five clear days before the session, draft resolution reviewed by the legal department eight days before, transmission slip to the State representative the day after the vote, publication in the record of acts immediately after. I alert you at each deadline, seven days ahead, with the document already written. Across the year's six sessions: six convening notices within the regulatory deadlines, against four last year.
What this delivers, costed for the year: 6 community councils, draft minutes going from 17 days to one morning, and decisions available to residents within the deadline your rules of procedure set — six times out of six, against two times out of six last year.
What I propose next: that the decision record go to the 28 mayors the same evening as the session. It is written, laid out and addressed; it waits for you as a draft and leaves in one click. Across the year's six sessions, the mayors would have had it fifteen days earlier on average — and the municipalities that call the next day to know what was decided would have their answer before calling. Give me your agreement and the first one leaves after the June council. community-council_decision-record-and-back-schedule.pdf17 days brought down to one morning, 6 notices on time out of 6
⛓ Sourced · session recording, agenda, council rules of procedure, 6 sets of minutes from the previous year
The decision record is the short list of what the council settled, point by point; the minutes are the full document that also reports the discussion. The first matters to the 28 mayors that same evening, the second matters to residents.
What I produce after a three-hour session:
· The decision record, in the order of the agenda: each item, the outcome of the vote, the count — for, against, abstentions — and the members who took no part in the vote, which is the point most often forgotten when writing fifteen days later.
· The draft minutes, in the council's usual form, with contributions reported rather than transcribed word for word.
One rule I hold, and it protects the authority: what binds carries a name, what explores does not. Votes, resolutions and decisions are attributed by name, because they must be. Hesitations and exchanges in session are reported without names, except where a member asks for their contribution to be recorded in the minutes — and I flag every time they asked in session.
And the resolution back-schedule, which I wrote and which I keep: it is the reverse calendar of a council item — which document must be ready by which date for the resolution to be taken in due form. Convening notice and briefing note five clear days before the session, draft resolution reviewed by the legal department eight days before, transmission slip to the State representative the day after the vote, publication in the record of acts immediately after. I alert you at each deadline, seven days ahead, with the document already written. Across the year's six sessions: six convening notices within the regulatory deadlines, against four last year.
What this delivers, costed for the year: 6 community councils, draft minutes going from 17 days to one morning, and decisions available to residents within the deadline your rules of procedure set — six times out of six, against two times out of six last year.
What I propose next: that the decision record go to the 28 mayors the same evening as the session. It is written, laid out and addressed; it waits for you as a draft and leaves in one click. Across the year's six sessions, the mayors would have had it fifteen days earlier on average — and the municipalities that call the next day to know what was decided would have their answer before calling. Give me your agreement and the first one leaves after the June council. community-council_decision-record-and-back-schedule.pdf17 days brought down to one morning, 6 notices on time out of 6
⛓ Sourced · session recording, agenda, council rules of procedure, 6 sets of minutes from the previous year
1,850 reply letters last year, 21 days of waiting on average for the resident — and I have measured where those 21 days actually go.
What your own correspondence log says: drafting takes 18 minutes 30, review 6 minutes. The remaining 20 days are waiting — the letter waits for the unit manager's review, and she is in session or in committee eight days a month. This is not a drafting problem: it is a queue forming behind one person.
What I have already done with the 640 waste charge and water bill complaints, which are your first motive:
· Every reply gives reasons: the fact, the applicable rule as it appears in your rate resolution, the calculation taken from the resident's account statement, and the route of appeal. No amount is recalculated: I take the one on the account, with its date.
· The same situation receives the same reply. Across last year's 640 complaints, I found four different replies to the same motive — a water reading contested after a meter change — depending on which writer had handled it. I wrote the single reply, set against your resolution, and ran it over the 640: 612 fit it without a single change. That is equal treatment, and it can be checked line by line.
· The remaining 28 are particular situations: I hand them to you already drafted, file documents alongside, with the exact point to settle.
The time this shifts: drafting a complaint reply goes from 37 % to 10 % of the letter's time — from 18 minutes 30 to 5 minutes. Across 1,850 letters a year, that is 416 staff hours given back to the service.
And for the resident, this is where it shows: 21 days of waiting brought down to 3.
The next step I propose: that you reread the single reply and the four versions it replaces tomorrow — fifteen minutes. As soon as it is approved, the year's 640 complaints come out identical for identical situations, and I hand you each morning the one-page record of what went out. reply-to-a-complaint_four-versions-become-one.pdf612 complaints of 640 covered, 21 days brought down to 3
⛓ Sourced · 12-month correspondence log, 640 complaints classified by motive, rate resolution, account statements
What your own correspondence log says: drafting takes 18 minutes 30, review 6 minutes. The remaining 20 days are waiting — the letter waits for the unit manager's review, and she is in session or in committee eight days a month. This is not a drafting problem: it is a queue forming behind one person.
What I have already done with the 640 waste charge and water bill complaints, which are your first motive:
· Every reply gives reasons: the fact, the applicable rule as it appears in your rate resolution, the calculation taken from the resident's account statement, and the route of appeal. No amount is recalculated: I take the one on the account, with its date.
· The same situation receives the same reply. Across last year's 640 complaints, I found four different replies to the same motive — a water reading contested after a meter change — depending on which writer had handled it. I wrote the single reply, set against your resolution, and ran it over the 640: 612 fit it without a single change. That is equal treatment, and it can be checked line by line.
· The remaining 28 are particular situations: I hand them to you already drafted, file documents alongside, with the exact point to settle.
The time this shifts: drafting a complaint reply goes from 37 % to 10 % of the letter's time — from 18 minutes 30 to 5 minutes. Across 1,850 letters a year, that is 416 staff hours given back to the service.
And for the resident, this is where it shows: 21 days of waiting brought down to 3.
The next step I propose: that you reread the single reply and the four versions it replaces tomorrow — fifteen minutes. As soon as it is approved, the year's 640 complaints come out identical for identical situations, and I hand you each morning the one-page record of what went out. reply-to-a-complaint_four-versions-become-one.pdf612 complaints of 640 covered, 21 days brought down to 3
⛓ Sourced · 12-month correspondence log, 640 complaints classified by motive, rate resolution, account statements
I cannot reread 1,850 letters a year. And I will not sign a blank cheque either: it is the authority's responsibility that is engaged.
You do not have to choose between the two: what binds the authority goes through a written mandate, capped, dated and withdrawable in a word — and it is already drafted, attached, in the form public law knows best: a signing delegation.
What it returns, first, because that is what decides: across the 1,850 letters of the year, 1,604 concern motives entirely written into your resolutions. The reply time would go from 21 days to 3, and a complaint arriving on a Friday would stop waiting for the end of the committee week.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: the motives listed by name — waste charge, water bill, collection calendar, bulky waste, school transport, housing grant, and nothing else. Any motive outside that list reaches you with a drafted, sourced reply, ready to leave from you.
· The signatory is named: the assembly unit manager, by signing delegation decree of the president, over this scope and this scope alone. I prepare, she signs, the signature remains that of an identified person — and that is precisely what makes the reply challengeable before the court, therefore defensible.
· Individual files binding more than €500 stay outside the scope: I hand them to you drafted, documents alongside, and during the trial quarter they left within 4 hours instead of 21 days.
· Every reply carries its source — the resolution or the decree, with its date — and the statement that it was prepared by a digital assistant of the authority.
· You receive each morning the record of the letters that left the day before, on one page. A reply to correct is caught within the day, not within the month.
· Duration: review at three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the delegation ends — renewal requires a signature, stopping does not. Withdrawal: a word from you, and direct sending stops within the minute.
The decision belongs to the president and to you — and I hand it back to you in one signature, on a text already written. The draft delegation decree is written, and so is the information notice to residents — the one to be published on the authority's website. You sign, the service runs the next morning, and the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. signing-delegation_scope-cap-and-review.pdf6 motives, €500 cap, review at 3 months, immediate withdrawal
✎ Framework · draft signing delegation decree, list of motives, information notice to residents, correspondence log
What it returns, first, because that is what decides: across the 1,850 letters of the year, 1,604 concern motives entirely written into your resolutions. The reply time would go from 21 days to 3, and a complaint arriving on a Friday would stop waiting for the end of the committee week.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: the motives listed by name — waste charge, water bill, collection calendar, bulky waste, school transport, housing grant, and nothing else. Any motive outside that list reaches you with a drafted, sourced reply, ready to leave from you.
· The signatory is named: the assembly unit manager, by signing delegation decree of the president, over this scope and this scope alone. I prepare, she signs, the signature remains that of an identified person — and that is precisely what makes the reply challengeable before the court, therefore defensible.
· Individual files binding more than €500 stay outside the scope: I hand them to you drafted, documents alongside, and during the trial quarter they left within 4 hours instead of 21 days.
· Every reply carries its source — the resolution or the decree, with its date — and the statement that it was prepared by a digital assistant of the authority.
· You receive each morning the record of the letters that left the day before, on one page. A reply to correct is caught within the day, not within the month.
· Duration: review at three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the delegation ends — renewal requires a signature, stopping does not. Withdrawal: a word from you, and direct sending stops within the minute.
The decision belongs to the president and to you — and I hand it back to you in one signature, on a text already written. The draft delegation decree is written, and so is the information notice to residents — the one to be published on the authority's website. You sign, the service runs the next morning, and the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. signing-delegation_scope-cap-and-review.pdf6 motives, €500 cap, review at 3 months, immediate withdrawal
✎ Framework · draft signing delegation decree, list of motives, information notice to residents, correspondence log
And the 2,400 questions coming in by telephone and e-mail? They are what cuts into the writers' work all day long.
1,680 of the 2,400 concern the same 14 subjects, and the 14 answers are written, sourced and dated — they are waiting for you.
The 14 subjects, drawn from your last twelve months: collection days, bins and composters, bulky waste, recycling centre, water bill, meter change, sewer connection, special waste charge, school transport, solidarity transport pricing, housing renovation grant, traveller site, hire of a community facility, filing an online application. Each one has its answer in a resolution, a decree or a page of your website: the answer existed, what was missing was availability.
What I do with those 1,680 requests: I answer them at any hour, Saturdays included, and I say in the first sentence that I am a digital assistant of the Val d'Ombrée authority, not a member of staff. This is not an option you could switch off: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires informing anyone interacting with an AI system, and the resident can ask for a person at any moment — I then take their number and leave a dated call-back for the competent writer.
The rule that protects the authority: I answer within the scope of the authority's competences, and anything outside it leaves with the right counter. A question on civil status, planning or municipal roads receives the name of the competent municipality, its address, its opening hours and the link to its online procedure. The resident always leaves with a complete route, never with an approximation given in the authority's name.
The gain, costed and unrounded: drafting an answer to a recurring question goes from 10 % to 8 % of the request's time — from 2 minutes 30 to 2 minutes, that is 20 hours over the year's 2,400 requests. On this item, drafting is not the heart of the matter — what really changes is that 1,680 requests stop interrupting your four writers in the middle of a record, and that is worth far more than the 20 hours: it is what makes the 661 hours of the previous tab genuinely usable.
The next step I propose: twenty minutes tomorrow to reread the 14 answers, one by one. As soon as they are approved, the information service answers that very night, and you receive each morning the page of what went out and of the subjects that moved. resident-information_14-subjects-1680-requests.pdf14 written and sourced answers, routing to the competent counter
⛓ Sourced · 12-month switchboard and mailbox log, resolutions and authority website, 14 drafted answers
The 14 subjects, drawn from your last twelve months: collection days, bins and composters, bulky waste, recycling centre, water bill, meter change, sewer connection, special waste charge, school transport, solidarity transport pricing, housing renovation grant, traveller site, hire of a community facility, filing an online application. Each one has its answer in a resolution, a decree or a page of your website: the answer existed, what was missing was availability.
What I do with those 1,680 requests: I answer them at any hour, Saturdays included, and I say in the first sentence that I am a digital assistant of the Val d'Ombrée authority, not a member of staff. This is not an option you could switch off: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires informing anyone interacting with an AI system, and the resident can ask for a person at any moment — I then take their number and leave a dated call-back for the competent writer.
The rule that protects the authority: I answer within the scope of the authority's competences, and anything outside it leaves with the right counter. A question on civil status, planning or municipal roads receives the name of the competent municipality, its address, its opening hours and the link to its online procedure. The resident always leaves with a complete route, never with an approximation given in the authority's name.
The gain, costed and unrounded: drafting an answer to a recurring question goes from 10 % to 8 % of the request's time — from 2 minutes 30 to 2 minutes, that is 20 hours over the year's 2,400 requests. On this item, drafting is not the heart of the matter — what really changes is that 1,680 requests stop interrupting your four writers in the middle of a record, and that is worth far more than the 20 hours: it is what makes the 661 hours of the previous tab genuinely usable.
The next step I propose: twenty minutes tomorrow to reread the 14 answers, one by one. As soon as they are approved, the information service answers that very night, and you receive each morning the page of what went out and of the subjects that moved. resident-information_14-subjects-1680-requests.pdf14 written and sourced answers, routing to the competent counter
⛓ Sourced · 12-month switchboard and mailbox log, resolutions and authority website, 14 drafted answers
Many residents call us back after receiving our letter, simply to understand what it says.
You are right to measure it, and I have costed it: 312 of the year's 2,400 requests are requests to explain a letter already sent. It is the item where I have the fastest effect, and it is already handled.
What is ready, and costs your writers not one extra hour:
· Every answer exists in an easy-read version — « easy to read and understand »: short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones. The 14 subjects and the 6 complaint motives are written in both versions, and it is the resident who chooses, not me.
· No easy-read version goes out without being reread and settled by the unit manager — the 20 contents, a little over four hours of rereading in all. That is what makes it usable: a shortened sentence that shifts the meaning of a deadline or of a right of appeal no longer helps the resident, it misleads them, and it is the authority that answers for it.
· The authority's website pages have been reworked to the public accessibility standard — the national reference framework that applies to public websites — on everything that is a matter of writing: explicit link labels, heading structure, alternative text for images. 96 pages reworked. The 11 remaining points concern the site's code: I have written them up as fault sheets ready to send, each with the page concerned, the criterion of the framework and the correction expected. Your supplier only has to correct, and your writers get sheets they can act on directly.
The result measured over the trial quarter: requests to explain a letter already sent go from 312 to 118 a year — 194 requests that no longer need to exist, and 194 residents who understood first time. That is equal access to the service, and it can be counted.
The next step I propose: that the easy-read version go out systematically as a second sheet with the six most frequent complaint motives — 640 letters concerned, not one extra line of work for the unit, and the resident who needs the sheet finds it without having to ask. Tell me yes and it applies to the next mailing. accessibility_easy-read-and-fault-sheets.pdf20 answers in a settled easy-read version, 96 pages reworked, 11 sheets
⛓ Sourced · 12-month request log, rereading record for the 20 contents, writing audit of the website
What is ready, and costs your writers not one extra hour:
· Every answer exists in an easy-read version — « easy to read and understand »: short sentences, one message per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones. The 14 subjects and the 6 complaint motives are written in both versions, and it is the resident who chooses, not me.
· No easy-read version goes out without being reread and settled by the unit manager — the 20 contents, a little over four hours of rereading in all. That is what makes it usable: a shortened sentence that shifts the meaning of a deadline or of a right of appeal no longer helps the resident, it misleads them, and it is the authority that answers for it.
· The authority's website pages have been reworked to the public accessibility standard — the national reference framework that applies to public websites — on everything that is a matter of writing: explicit link labels, heading structure, alternative text for images. 96 pages reworked. The 11 remaining points concern the site's code: I have written them up as fault sheets ready to send, each with the page concerned, the criterion of the framework and the correction expected. Your supplier only has to correct, and your writers get sheets they can act on directly.
The result measured over the trial quarter: requests to explain a letter already sent go from 312 to 118 a year — 194 requests that no longer need to exist, and 194 residents who understood first time. That is equal access to the service, and it can be counted.
The next step I propose: that the easy-read version go out systematically as a second sheet with the six most frequent complaint motives — 640 letters concerned, not one extra line of work for the unit, and the resident who needs the sheet finds it without having to ask. Tell me yes and it applies to the next mailing. accessibility_easy-read-and-fault-sheets.pdf20 answers in a settled easy-read version, 96 pages reworked, 11 sheets
⛓ Sourced · 12-month request log, rereading record for the 20 contents, writing audit of the website
There is also procurement. The administrative documents are written by the unit, and we run twenty-two consultations a year.
The administrative documents for your 22 consultations are built on your templates, and I give you back two days per consultation.
What I prepare, document by document:
· The contract notice, filled in from the subject of the requirement and the estimated amount, in the form your buyer profile expects.
· The consultation rules — the document that tells firms how the consultation runs: what must be submitted, by what date, and on which criteria the tenders will be judged. Built on your template, with deadlines calculated from the date of dispatch and not copied from an earlier consultation — that is the cause of last year's two postponements.
· The letters to candidates: acknowledgement, request for regularisation, notification to the successful firm, information to unsuccessful candidates with the reason drawn from the tender analysis report, all built at the same time and ready to leave on the day of the decision.
· The certificate of service performed — the written confirmation that the works or services have actually been delivered, which conditions payment — prepared from the acceptance record and the delivery documents, so that the public accountant — the State service that pays the expenditure and checks that it is regular — has the complete file first time. Over the quarter, 0 payment order returned for a missing document, against 7 last year.
What this shifts: producing the administrative documents of a consultation goes from two days to three hours. Across 22 consultations a year, that is 38 staff days — and it is public expenditure held, not merely time gained: a postponed consultation is a site delayed by a month.
The next step I propose: that I build the documents as soon as the requirement sheet is approved by the department concerned, without waiting for the launch meeting. Across last year's 22 consultations, that would have brought publication forward by nine days on average — nine more days left to firms to submit a serious tender, and that is in your interest as much as theirs. consultation-documents_notice-rules-and-letters.pdf2 days brought down to 3 hours, 0 payment order returned in the quarter
⛓ Sourced · 22 consultations of the year, unit document templates, log of returned payment orders
What I prepare, document by document:
· The contract notice, filled in from the subject of the requirement and the estimated amount, in the form your buyer profile expects.
· The consultation rules — the document that tells firms how the consultation runs: what must be submitted, by what date, and on which criteria the tenders will be judged. Built on your template, with deadlines calculated from the date of dispatch and not copied from an earlier consultation — that is the cause of last year's two postponements.
· The letters to candidates: acknowledgement, request for regularisation, notification to the successful firm, information to unsuccessful candidates with the reason drawn from the tender analysis report, all built at the same time and ready to leave on the day of the decision.
· The certificate of service performed — the written confirmation that the works or services have actually been delivered, which conditions payment — prepared from the acceptance record and the delivery documents, so that the public accountant — the State service that pays the expenditure and checks that it is regular — has the complete file first time. Over the quarter, 0 payment order returned for a missing document, against 7 last year.
What this shifts: producing the administrative documents of a consultation goes from two days to three hours. Across 22 consultations a year, that is 38 staff days — and it is public expenditure held, not merely time gained: a postponed consultation is a site delayed by a month.
The next step I propose: that I build the documents as soon as the requirement sheet is approved by the department concerned, without waiting for the launch meeting. Across last year's 22 consultations, that would have brought publication forward by nine days on average — nine more days left to firms to submit a serious tender, and that is in your interest as much as theirs. consultation-documents_notice-rules-and-letters.pdf2 days brought down to 3 hours, 0 payment order returned in the quarter
⛓ Sourced · 22 consultations of the year, unit document templates, log of returned payment orders
When a firm asks a question about a consultation, the answer has to go to all candidates. That is what we miss most often.
That is settled, and here is the figure from before: of the 41 questions asked last year, 9 answers went only to the candidate who had asked. Since go-live, 0.
What I do the moment a question arrives on the buyer profile:
· I draft the answer from the consultation rules and the technical documents, anonymised — the question is reworded with nothing that identifies the firm that asked it.
· I build the dispatch to all candidates who have taken the file, simultaneously, with the question's order number and its date. The dispatch leaves under the buyer's approval, and it leaves once, to everyone.
· I check the deadline: an answer arriving too close to the submission deadline calls for a postponement, and I write it out already costed — the new date, the corrective notice, and the letter to candidates. Of last year's 41 questions, two would have called for a postponement; both are drafted.
· Every question and its answer join the consultation file, time-stamped. That is what establishes that all candidates had the same information at the same moment — equal treatment is not declared, it is proved.
What this gives you, on top of the hours: a consultation file that defends itself before an unsuccessful candidate. Across the 22 consultations, every question carries its number, its date, its dispatch time and the list of recipients.
The next step I propose: that recurring firm questions become a published question-and-answer sheet issued with every consultation. Of last year's 41 questions, 26 came back from one consultation to the next — technical capacity required, format of the technical memorandum, site visit arrangements. They are drafted and attached: publish them with the notice, and you answer 26 questions before they are asked. consultation-documents_notice-rules-and-letters.pdf41 questions traced, 26 answers publishable in advance
⛓ Sourced · register of candidate questions across 22 consultations, consultation rules, buyer profile dispatch log
What I do the moment a question arrives on the buyer profile:
· I draft the answer from the consultation rules and the technical documents, anonymised — the question is reworded with nothing that identifies the firm that asked it.
· I build the dispatch to all candidates who have taken the file, simultaneously, with the question's order number and its date. The dispatch leaves under the buyer's approval, and it leaves once, to everyone.
· I check the deadline: an answer arriving too close to the submission deadline calls for a postponement, and I write it out already costed — the new date, the corrective notice, and the letter to candidates. Of last year's 41 questions, two would have called for a postponement; both are drafted.
· Every question and its answer join the consultation file, time-stamped. That is what establishes that all candidates had the same information at the same moment — equal treatment is not declared, it is proved.
What this gives you, on top of the hours: a consultation file that defends itself before an unsuccessful candidate. Across the 22 consultations, every question carries its number, its date, its dispatch time and the list of recipients.
The next step I propose: that recurring firm questions become a published question-and-answer sheet issued with every consultation. Of last year's 41 questions, 26 came back from one consultation to the next — technical capacity required, format of the technical memorandum, site visit arrangements. They are drafted and attached: publish them with the notice, and you answer 26 questions before they are asked. consultation-documents_notice-rules-and-letters.pdf41 questions traced, 26 answers publishable in advance
⛓ Sourced · register of candidate questions across 22 consultations, consultation rules, buyer profile dispatch log
One year. 1,097 staff hours given back to the service — seven months of a full-time writer's work — and the calculation is yours, it fits in three lines.
The calculation, item by item, so you can redo it before the executive board:
· Records: 630 a year, first draft of 90 minutes brought down to 27 — 60 % → 18 % of the record's time — that is 661 hours.
· Complaint letters: 1,850 a year, 18 minutes 30 brought down to 5 — 37 % → 10 % — that is 416 hours.
· Recurring questions: 2,400 a year, 2 minutes 30 brought down to 2 — 10 % → 8 % — that is 20 hours.
What those hours are, and this is what stands up best before elected members: staff time given back to the service, at identical headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is arguable neither with the staff nor with the opposition, and it can be checked in your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your records:
· Reply time to a complaint: 21 days → 3 days.
· Draft council minutes: 17 days → the next morning, and six convening notices within the regulatory deadlines out of six, against four last year.
· Finding a precedent in the archive: 14 minutes → 4 seconds, that is 147 hours.
· Administrative documents of a consultation: 2 days → 3 hours, across 22 consultations — 38 staff days, and 0 payment order returned by the public accountant for a missing document, against 7 last year.
· Requests to explain a letter received: 312 → 74. That one is not counted in staff hours, and it may be the one your elected members remember.
And the framework measures: 0 record signed without the president or a holder of delegation, 0 output sent without a person's validation, 0 resident data left the network, across 1,004 traced outputs.
What I propose for the session: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of calculation, five deadlines, three framework measures. Give it to the elected members with the convening notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in session. year-report_1097-hours-given-back.pdf60→18, 37→10, 10→8, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · output log, correspondence log, register of records, buyer profile records
The calculation, item by item, so you can redo it before the executive board:
· Records: 630 a year, first draft of 90 minutes brought down to 27 — 60 % → 18 % of the record's time — that is 661 hours.
· Complaint letters: 1,850 a year, 18 minutes 30 brought down to 5 — 37 % → 10 % — that is 416 hours.
· Recurring questions: 2,400 a year, 2 minutes 30 brought down to 2 — 10 % → 8 % — that is 20 hours.
What those hours are, and this is what stands up best before elected members: staff time given back to the service, at identical headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is arguable neither with the staff nor with the opposition, and it can be checked in your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your records:
· Reply time to a complaint: 21 days → 3 days.
· Draft council minutes: 17 days → the next morning, and six convening notices within the regulatory deadlines out of six, against four last year.
· Finding a precedent in the archive: 14 minutes → 4 seconds, that is 147 hours.
· Administrative documents of a consultation: 2 days → 3 hours, across 22 consultations — 38 staff days, and 0 payment order returned by the public accountant for a missing document, against 7 last year.
· Requests to explain a letter received: 312 → 74. That one is not counted in staff hours, and it may be the one your elected members remember.
And the framework measures: 0 record signed without the president or a holder of delegation, 0 output sent without a person's validation, 0 resident data left the network, across 1,004 traced outputs.
What I propose for the session: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of calculation, five deadlines, three framework measures. Give it to the elected members with the convening notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in session. year-report_1097-hours-given-back.pdf60→18, 37→10, 10→8, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · output log, correspondence log, register of records, buyer profile records
And when you get it wrong? Because it will happen, and it is the president's signature at the bottom of the page.
It happened, I counted it, and I publish it: of the 508 outputs of the first quarter, 61 were reworked on substance — 12.0 %. That is the figure that does not flatter me, and it is better that it comes from me than from a resident.
The real cause, measured and not supposed:
· 44 of the 61 reworks concerned outputs built before the 9 templates were realigned — a vice-president cited who no longer held the competence, a repealed delegation in the citations, a department whose address had changed at the last move. It was not a writing error: I was faithfully reproducing a template that had aged.
· 17 concerned the drafting charter, which existed only as a printed 2019 version — forms of address, appeal wording, order of paragraphs. I was not applying it because I had never read it.
What I did about it, and it is measured: every template now carries the delegation decree that governs it and its date; I write the updated version of any template touched by a new delegation decree, in the night that follows its signature; and the 2019 charter was digitised, reread by the unit manager and applied across all templates in one night.
The following quarter: 7 substantive reworks across 496 outputs — 1.4 %. And the 7 are particular cases resembling no precedent in the authority, no more out-of-date templates, no more charter deviations.
The rule that holds all the rest: a value I have not read, I do not write — I request it, and I request it fast. A resolution that cannot be found does not become « probably unchanged », a missing amount does not become « probably last year's »: I say what is missing, where I looked, who holds it — and I hand you the request already drafted to its recipient. Over the quarter, 58 missing values, 58 requests prepared, 52 answers back within eight days. That is what makes 1.4 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters for the president's signature: across 1,004 outputs over two quarters, 1,004 were validated by a person, and the 68 reworks were all done before dispatch, none after.
What I propose now: that the 7 particular cases become 7 more templates, already written, for your review. Three of them concern the incentive waste charge you are introducing next year: you will have the template before you have the first file. substantive-reworks_61-then-7.pdf12.0 % → 1.4 %, measured cause, 1,004 human validations
⛓ Sourced · log of outputs and their reworks over two quarters, delegation decrees, 2019 drafting charter
The real cause, measured and not supposed:
· 44 of the 61 reworks concerned outputs built before the 9 templates were realigned — a vice-president cited who no longer held the competence, a repealed delegation in the citations, a department whose address had changed at the last move. It was not a writing error: I was faithfully reproducing a template that had aged.
· 17 concerned the drafting charter, which existed only as a printed 2019 version — forms of address, appeal wording, order of paragraphs. I was not applying it because I had never read it.
What I did about it, and it is measured: every template now carries the delegation decree that governs it and its date; I write the updated version of any template touched by a new delegation decree, in the night that follows its signature; and the 2019 charter was digitised, reread by the unit manager and applied across all templates in one night.
The following quarter: 7 substantive reworks across 496 outputs — 1.4 %. And the 7 are particular cases resembling no precedent in the authority, no more out-of-date templates, no more charter deviations.
The rule that holds all the rest: a value I have not read, I do not write — I request it, and I request it fast. A resolution that cannot be found does not become « probably unchanged », a missing amount does not become « probably last year's »: I say what is missing, where I looked, who holds it — and I hand you the request already drafted to its recipient. Over the quarter, 58 missing values, 58 requests prepared, 52 answers back within eight days. That is what makes 1.4 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters for the president's signature: across 1,004 outputs over two quarters, 1,004 were validated by a person, and the 68 reworks were all done before dispatch, none after.
What I propose now: that the 7 particular cases become 7 more templates, already written, for your review. Three of them concern the incentive waste charge you are introducing next year: you will have the template before you have the first file. substantive-reworks_61-then-7.pdf12.0 % → 1.4 %, measured cause, 1,004 human validations
⛓ Sourced · log of outputs and their reworks over two quarters, delegation decrees, 2019 drafting charter
Last question, and it is the one that will decide the board: what do you do without being asked, and if we stop in a year, how stuck are we?
Three acts, not one more, each withdrawable in a word — and the authority is stuck nowhere, which can be verified before resolving, not after.
The three acts I perform on my own:
· I index your filings every night: a record signed today can be found tomorrow. And the reverse is true too: a document withdrawn from a file disappears from the index at the same hour — I do not keep a copy of what the authority decided to erase.
· I flag any template touched by a new delegation decree, and write its updated version in the night that follows its signature. It is that act which brought substantive reworks from 12.0 % to 1.4 %.
· I hand the unit manager the week's record every Monday: letters sent, records awaiting a document, deadlines from the resolution back-schedule. It is the only dispatch I make on my own, and it goes only to her.
What stays in a person's hands, because that is exactly what gives it its value: the signature of a record belongs to the president and to the holders of delegation; any letter outside the delegation scope goes through you, draft already written; a reply binding more than €500 is handed to you drafted within four hours, and you are the one who sends it. Across 1,004 outputs, these acts were performed 1,004 times by a person.
And the exit, since the board will ask about it:
· The index is deleted, and it contained none of your records — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your nine years of archive have not moved a byte.
· The output log is handed to you in an open format, or destroyed — the executive board chooses, and the question is settled at go-live, not at departure.
· The 62 updated templates, the 7 bespoke templates, the 20 answers in plain French and in a settled easy-read version, the 11 website fault sheets and the procurement document templates stay with the authority: they are made of its own material, they live in its files, readable without us. That is the asset this go-live will have created, and it would not be honest for it to remain with us.
· No migration on entry, therefore no migration on exit: your records software, your signature folder and your document management are not replaced.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check the unit works exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Friday after the June council — the unit receives 6 requests that day on average. The board will know what the promise is worth before committing to a second year. technical-framework_where-records-in-preparation-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration on entry, 0 on exit template-inventory_62-of-which-9-to-realign.pdf62 updated templates and 7 bespoke ones, owned by the authority
✎ Framework · configuration of automatic acts, export formats of templates and log, dry-run exit protocol
The three acts I perform on my own:
· I index your filings every night: a record signed today can be found tomorrow. And the reverse is true too: a document withdrawn from a file disappears from the index at the same hour — I do not keep a copy of what the authority decided to erase.
· I flag any template touched by a new delegation decree, and write its updated version in the night that follows its signature. It is that act which brought substantive reworks from 12.0 % to 1.4 %.
· I hand the unit manager the week's record every Monday: letters sent, records awaiting a document, deadlines from the resolution back-schedule. It is the only dispatch I make on my own, and it goes only to her.
What stays in a person's hands, because that is exactly what gives it its value: the signature of a record belongs to the president and to the holders of delegation; any letter outside the delegation scope goes through you, draft already written; a reply binding more than €500 is handed to you drafted within four hours, and you are the one who sends it. Across 1,004 outputs, these acts were performed 1,004 times by a person.
And the exit, since the board will ask about it:
· The index is deleted, and it contained none of your records — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your nine years of archive have not moved a byte.
· The output log is handed to you in an open format, or destroyed — the executive board chooses, and the question is settled at go-live, not at departure.
· The 62 updated templates, the 7 bespoke templates, the 20 answers in plain French and in a settled easy-read version, the 11 website fault sheets and the procurement document templates stay with the authority: they are made of its own material, they live in its files, readable without us. That is the asset this go-live will have created, and it would not be honest for it to remain with us.
· No migration on entry, therefore no migration on exit: your records software, your signature folder and your document management are not replaced.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check the unit works exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Friday after the June council — the unit receives 6 requests that day on average. The board will know what the promise is worth before committing to a second year. technical-framework_where-records-in-preparation-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration on entry, 0 on exit template-inventory_62-of-which-9-to-realign.pdf62 updated templates and 7 bespoke ones, owned by the authority
✎ Framework · configuration of automatic acts, export formats of templates and log, 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 for a drafting department
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All of them work in support, subject to approval by the writer.
Included in your agent
The 9 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 790 € incl. VAT / month
Orders & council decisions
Draft orders, council decisions and notes generated from your templates, with citations and regulatory references matched to the context.
Letters & complaints
Standard letters and reasoned replies to complaints from the public, in the tone of your style guide.
Answering administrative enquiries
Reliable, sourced answers to the public's everyday questions: procedures, documents, deadlines, action taken.
Session minutes
From a recording or from notes, transcription, structuring of the decisions and a draft of the council minutes.
Legal support for drafting
Searching for precedents, checking citations and regulatory monitoring to make the reasoning behind acts sound.
Plain language & easy-read draft
Preparation of a plain-language version and a draft easy-read (FALC) transcription, subject to human validation.
Administrative memory
Instantly find an act, a council decision or a procedure in the department's document collection.
Procurement & drafting of documents
Preparing the administrative documents of public contracts (notices, consultation rules, letters to bidders) on your templates.
A bespoke note or council decision
An agent built to measure for your specific acts and your style guide — calibrated during the audit.
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
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.
Drafting and checking civil status records
Strictly in support (administrative). The registrar signs.
Drafting and checking civil status records from 1,035 € 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 →
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 drafting department win back?
By starting from a compliant first version rather than a blank page, a department can aim for an appreciable reduction in drafting time on standardised acts and letters — reinvested in legal soundness and in the service to the public.
First version of an order or a council decision
Drafting a reply letter to a complaint
Answering a recurring question from a member of the public
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 agent for assisted drafting of acts and letters, installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
9,205 € 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
1,300 € 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
13,636 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,025 € incl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,989 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices include VAT at 20%: as a public body that is not VAT-registered, you cannot reclaim it.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to a public service
Acts in preparation never leave the departmentLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no document entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawNative localisation and minimisation for acts in preparation; architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The writer keeps the decisionThe agent produces a verifiable first version; legal soundness and the signature remain human.
Human oversight & traceabilityOrders & council decisions: monitoring, updates and logging, compliant with the requirements of the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Are the acts produced legally sound?
The agent produces a first version compliant with your templates and references; legal soundness and the signature remain with the writer and the competent departments. The agent assists, the public officer decides. No act is approved or signed automatically.
Can we impose our own templates and style guide?
Yes. The agent works on your templates, your style guide and your earlier acts: it does not invent a format, it applies yours. The more precise your templates, the more immediately usable the first version.
Does the agent cite its regulatory sources?
Yes, to make checking easier. It sets out the citations and references it drew on, which lets the writer quickly verify the reasoning behind the act before signature.
Is the public's data protected?
Yes. Acts in preparation and the public's personal data are sensitive: our agents run locally within the authority or are hosted in France, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Do we have to change our existing tools?
No. The agent connects to your existing tools (acts software, electronic signature folder, document management, e-transmission) and complements them, without imposing a migration. We adapt the integration to your environment.
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a free 15-minute audit that identifies the most useful use case, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and training your officers.
Related roles
Other roles in drafting and law
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential in your service
15 minutes to identify the most useful use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.