● Public sector — Planning assessment

The AI agent for assessing planning applications: prepare the analysis, secure the decision

The time allowed to assess a planning application is set by law, and every analytical error exposes the authority to litigation. This AI building block equips the whole case-handling department: systematic testing against the local plan, completeness checks, detection of inconsistencies. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — it is installed without changing your business software. The competent authority decides and signs, file by file.

Free audit (15 min) → See the prices

Hosted in France Configured on your local plan GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment Reinforced human oversight

Updated on 07/09/2026

Deployed in a few weeks

Planning assessment assistant · hosted in France

For prior declaration DP-2026-0184 (extension + fence), test the project against the local plan and check that the file is complete.

File tested against the zone UB regulations. Footprint and height compliant. Two points to watch: the proposed fence colour is not in the palette allowed by article 11, and the plot falls within a heritage protection easement (listed monument perimeter) — the heritage architect's opinion is required.
Completeness: the dimensioned site plan (document DP2) and the certificate of compliance with the 2020 environmental regulation are missing.
⛓ Source · the local plan's regulations + the council's easement map

The heritage perimeter — is that certain?

To be verified by the case officer: the plot is about 480 m from a listed monument, within the inherited 500 m protection perimeter, not yet replaced by a delimited perimeter. Recommendation: consult the heritage architect before deciding, and notify the applicant of an extended assessment period.
I am preparing the letter requesting documents and the heritage referral form, for your review.
✎ Action · draft letters ready — the case officer approves and the authority signs

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Data hosted in France

Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France

GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight

TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you

The authority decidesThe agent assists, never decides alone

✦ In brief

For a case-handling department (council, intercommunal body, shared planning service), a Blue Lemon Agent agent prepares the assessment of planning applications — testing against the local plan and the easements, checking the completeness of the documents, spotting inconsistencies — and highlights the points the case officer should look at. It is configured on your own local planning documents and runs on local inference or is hosted in France: applicants' documents are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Strictly in support, with no automated decision and reinforced human oversight. The decision and the signature remain with the competent authority.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU in the target architecture

uses ready to deploy on this scope

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 assessment services — and why they hesitate

The statutory assessment deadlines are tight, the regulations increasingly dense (local plan, easements, environmental regulation, heritage architect), and the slightest error of completeness or consistency opens the door to litigation. But the data handled concerns real people and real projects.

! The issue

The case-handling department is caught between assessment deadlines that cannot stretch, planning rules that layer on top of each other (zoning, articles of the regulations, public utility easements, external opinions) and a requirement of legal soundness on every decision. Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting applicants' documents, plans, land registry data and local regulations to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.

✓ Our answer

For a public service, AI is only of interest if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, configuration on your own planning documents, reinforced human oversight, no automated decision: the time saved on preparation is never paid for in lost sovereignty or diminished equal treatment. The aim is not to replace the case officer, but to make their analysis more reliable and faster.

The decisive point

Sovereignty of planning data: compliance & continuity of public service

A case-handling department handles applicants' documents and projects, and engages the authority's liability. 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 department: no document leaves the authority's network, nothing passes through a public cloud.

Hosting in France

Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — planning data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity for applicants' documents: our architecture stays out of the American hyperscalers' reach, even when hosted in Europe.

One isolated resource per authority

No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your case-handling department.

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 automated decision; traceability and reinforced 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 highest requirements, SecNumCloud and qualified hosting options are available according to the level required. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.

Demonstration

See the agent at work

4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.

A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.

Planning assessment assistant · hosted in France

Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· A request for documents was notified on the 47th day after filing on DP-2026-0203. Article R*423-38 provides for it within the month.
· Three files reach the end of their assessment period this week and no decision is drafted.
· A second request for documents went out on PC-2026-0088. The first was therefore not exhaustive.
· Documents arrived on 14/07 on two files and the period was not recalculated in the system. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · files concerned
⛓ Source · filing register, notified letters, acknowledgements, system deadlines

The request sent on the 47th day — what does that change?

It bears on the period, and it is the only one of the four that can produce a decision without anybody taking it.
What I established, document by document: filed at the town hall on 18/05, acknowledged the same day, request for documents notified on 04/07 — that is the 47th day.
What the two texts say, which I quote because they are short and checkable:
· R*423-23 — the standard assessment period is one month for a prior declaration.
· R*423-38 — where the file is incomplete, the authority sends the applicant, within the month following the filing, a recorded-delivery letter setting out exhaustively the missing documents.
What I do not say: that a tacit decision has been acquired. That is a legal characterisation, and it is yours to make — I record two dates and I quote two articles.
The note is ready, with the three dated documents, for your legal team. DP-2026-0203_notified-on-day-47.pdf3 dates · 2 articles quoted
⛓ Source · filing of 18/05, notification of 04/07 · art. R*423-23 and R*423-38 French planning code

How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?

I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: the filing register and its acknowledgements, notified letters and their dates, your system's deadline schedule, and documents received.
Routing follows your organisation: the late notification to the head of service and the lawyer, both together — one assesses, the other characterises; the three expiring periods to their respective case officers; the second request for documents to the head of service, because it is the first one that raises the question; the unrecalculated periods to the system administrator.
With a chase: 12 h on the late notification and the three expiring periods — a period cannot be recovered; 48 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary to the head of service: by file, never by case officer.

What that gives you this morning: four files picked up before a deadline decided in the service's place. A request for documents notified on day 47 taken to the lawyer with its three dates, three expiring periods handed to their case officers, a second request for documents raised with the head of service, and two deadline schedules brought up to date in the system.
What that gives the service back from tomorrow: the case officer opens a file already checked against the local plan and the easements, completeness verified, contradictions between dimensions and floor areas brought out. The competent authority decides and signs in minutes on a complete, reasoned file, instead of piecing the chronology back together. Statutory periods are met, and the same project gets the same analysis whichever officer handles it and whoever the applicant is.
On what I consult: access is opened by service and by file type, every lookup is logged, and it is withdrawn with a single word. And applicants' documents leave neither the service nor France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The next step is ready: a few minutes to load your local plan and your easements, and I take up this month's deadline schedule, file by file.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds

Set PC-2026-0141 against the zone UC regulations.

Eleven clauses examined, eight compliant, three to settle — and each points back to its drawing.
Compliant, with the measured value: site coverage 32% against 40 allowed, height 8.40 m against 9 allowed, setback from the road 6.20 m against 5 required, and five further points.
Three to settle, and they are not of the same kind:
· Parking — the regulations require 2 spaces per dwelling; the drawing shows 3 for 2 dwellings. One is missing, that is arithmetic.
· Green space — 28% of the plot, the regulations require 30. The difference lies in what is counted: the drawing includes the access driveway, the regulations exclude it — I flag the reading, I do not settle it.
· External appearance — the regulations require a colour "in harmony with neighbouring buildings". No value can be checked here; it is a case officer's judgement.
What I hand you, and why the conclusion is yours: the eleven clauses, each with the measured value, the source dimension and the drawing number that carries it — eight check out on a figure, three call for a reading. Compliance is pronounced in a decision that carries your signature and can be challenged: it is the reasoning that defends it, and the reasoning is already drafted for all eleven clauses. Three judgements are left to you, and twenty minutes of reading. PC-2026-0141_set-against-the-plan.pdf11 clauses · 8 compliant · 3 to settle
⛓ Source · zone UC regulations, drawings PC2 and PC4, descriptive statement

The 28% green space — can you settle it?

No, and the reason is interesting: both readings can be defended and they do not give the same result.
What the regulations say, clause UC 13: "at least 30% of the plot shall be laid out as open-ground green space".
What the drawing shows: 28% excluding the access driveway, 31% including it.
What separates the two: the driveway is stabilised gravel. Depending on whether it is treated as a permeable surface or as a laid-out area, it counts towards the 30% or it does not.
What I can bring, and have brought: four files from the same zone where the question arose. Three excluded the driveway, one included it — and that one had unstabilised gravel.
What I isolated in the four, rather than deriving a rule from them: the fact that decided each one, and it is the same every time — the nature of the gravel. Here it is stabilised, as in the three files that excluded the driveway. A consistent practice is not a regulation, and the case officer may depart from it with reasons: that is exactly what the fourth file did. So you have both sets of reasons in front of you, the three and the fourth, ready to be taken up either way. zone-UC_4-green-space-precedents.pdf4 files · 3 exclusions, 1 inclusion
✎ Support · 4 precedents from the same zone — the reading stays with the case officer

Check the completeness of PC-2026-0158 before I notify.

Seven documents are missing, and the number is the point: they go out in a single letter.
Why this is the heart of the matter: article R*423-38 requires the letter to set out exhaustively the missing documents. A second request does not repair an incomplete first one — which is what happened on PC-2026-0088 this morning.
The seven, with their form reference: landscape integration (PC6), photograph of the wider setting (PC8), thermal regulations certificate, fire safety statement, dimensioned section on natural ground level, certificate of no objection from the estate developer, and the signatory's authority.
Two points I flag without counting them as missing: PC4 is supplied but illegible at printed scale, and the form states a floor area differing from the drawing by 4 m².
The letter is written: the seven documents listed with their references, the two points flagged separately, and the deadline computed from the filing date.
What is yours to do is the notification: it carries your signature and it starts a clock — that is what makes it enforceable against the applicant, and why only one person can set it running. You read, you sign, it goes out the same day. PC-2026-0158_7-missing-documents.pdf7 documents · 2 points flagged
⛓ Source · file as filed, document schedule, completed application form

The two flagged points — do we put them in the letter?

That is your call, and it is not neutral — here is what decides it.
The illegible PC4: the document is supplied. Asking for it again as "missing" would be inaccurate; saying nothing means assessing on a drawing nobody can read. The wording that holds both: note that it is supplied and ask for a usable print, in the same letter but in a paragraph separate from the seven.
The floor area gap: 4 m² between the form and the dimensioned drawing. That is not a missing document, it is an inconsistency — and it is better settled by a phone call than by recorded delivery.
What I have prepared: the letter with the seven documents, the separate paragraph for PC4, and a call note for the area gap.

And an observation beyond this file: of your 84 requests for documents last year, eleven were followed by a second request. In nine cases out of eleven, the forgotten document was one of the same three. requests-for-documents_11-second-requests.pdf84 requests · 11 second · 3 recurring documents
✎ Support · letter drafted in 2 blocks — signature and sending stay with the service

Have we had a covered swimming pool in an agricultural zone before?

Three times since 2019, and all three had different outcomes — which is the useful information.
· DP-2019-0142 — objection, grounds: building not necessary to the agricultural holding.
· PC-2021-0067 — granted, the applicant farmed the land and the pool adjoined the existing dwelling.
· PC-2023-0198 — objection, then granted after an internal appeal and a modified scheme.
What the third brings: the response to the internal appeal is on file. It sets out exactly what changed the decision — the pool brought within the existing built envelope.
What I did with those three, rather than deriving a doctrine: for each, I set out the clause in the version applicable to it — it was amended in 2022, between the first and the last — and the word that changed. On the only file postdating the amendment, the ground relied on comes down to one sentence, and I have carried it across, unaltered, into the two draft decisions waiting for you: the grant and the objection.
What follows is decided, and it is signed: three files are not a rule, and it is the case officer who judges. What I hand you is a decision drafted both ways, with its reference cases, their reasons, and the clause of the regulations that changed in between. agricultural-zone_3-pool-precedents.pdf3 files · 2 objections, 1 grant
⛓ Source · 3 files, reasoned decisions, 2022 amendment to the regulations

The regulations changed in 2022? In what way?

On one precise point, and it makes the first precedent hard to reuse.
Before 2022, clause A 2: only buildings "necessary to the agricultural holding" were permitted.
Since the amendment of 14/09/2022: extensions and outbuildings to existing dwellings are also permitted, within limits of area and siting set out in the regulations.
What that changes for your three precedents: the 2019 objection rested on wording that no longer exists. Citing it today as a precedent would be an error, and it is the kind of error made by searching quickly in a system.
So what I do as a matter of course: when I surface a precedent, I surface the version of the regulations in force at the date of the decision, and I flag whether it has changed since.

Across your whole caseload: your local plan has been amended three times since 2019. 412 of 1,180 files assessed were assessed under a version earlier than the one now in force. local-plan_3-amendments-since-2019.pdf1,180 files · 412 under an earlier version
✎ Support · the version of the regulations attached to every precedent

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 facets of the agent in assessing planning applications

Each use corresponds to a capability we configure on your local documents. All of them work in support, subject to approval by the case officer and the competent authority.

Included in your agent The 8 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.

From 1,295 € incl. VAT / month

Testing against the local plan

Reading the project against the zoning and the articles of the regulations (footprint, height, setback, appearance), for the case officer to approve.

Easements & constraints

Spotting the public utility easements and perimeters (heritage, risk) that may require an opinion or an extended deadline.

Completeness checks

Checking the file's documents (application forms, plans, certificates) and flagging gaps before requesting further documents.

Reading documents & plans

OCR and extraction of the key information from application forms, site plans and notices, to prepare the analysis.

Detecting inconsistencies

Highlighting contradictions between documents (areas, dimensions, description) and points of legal concern.

Preparing the letters

Draft requests for documents, deadline notifications and referrals for external opinions, from your own templates.

Informing applicants

Answers to everyday questions: documents to provide, deadlines, applicable zoning, progress of a file.

Planning memory

Instantly find an article of the regulations, a local court ruling or an earlier assessment precedent.

Controls and safeguards These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.

Human validation, exceptions and escalation Status, safe closure and audit trail Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer Prepare without deciding: sourced rules, supporting documents, anomalies and explanation Guarantee the decision, signature, recourse and responsibility of the public official Record versions, access, criteria, actions and notifications Test for bias, false positives, fundamental rights and continuity of service

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.

Pre-assessment of applications (benefits, grants, permits)

Consistency check. Final decision by a human.

Pre-assessment of applications (benefits, grants, permits) from 1,005 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Support for assessing pension files

Strictly in support (administrative). No automated award.

Support for assessing pension files from 1,135 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Pre-assessment of social assistance (local welfare centre)

Strictly in support (administrative). Award decision by a human.

Pre-assessment of social assistance (local welfare centre) from 1,050 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Pre-assessment of permits at the prefecture

Strictly in support (administrative). Issue decided by the officer.

Pre-assessment of permits at the prefecture from 1,005 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Does your need fall outside this?

In 15 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.

Book the free audit → Build your agent

The gain

How much time can an assessment department win back?

By automating the reading of documents, the testing against the local plan and the completeness checks, a department can aim for a noticeable reduction in preparation time on standardised files — reinvested in detailed analysis and in meeting the deadlines.

First local plan analysis + completeness of a file

Today · done by hand

Prepared by the agent, to approve

Spotting easements and points to watch

Today · done by hand

Near-instant

Answering an applicant's question

Today · done by hand

Automatic

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

Audit & scoping

15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.

Quote or direct sign-up

A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.

Design

We design the agent and its guardrails.

Integration & testing

We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.

Rollout

Going live and training your team.

Operation

Continuous supervision and improvement.

Pricing

A clear offer, one agent

An agent supporting the assessment of planning applications (local plan, completeness, consistency), configured on your local documents, installed and operated for you. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.

Agility

Setup + controlled subscription

17,005 € ^{incl. VAT} setup

then 1,295 € ^{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

Order →

The simplest Serenity

All inclusive, no setup fee

2,240 € ^{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

Order →

100% Sovereign

On site, you own it

22,666 € ^{incl. VAT} setup

then 1,560 € ^{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)

Order →

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.

See the full price list →

Estimate my gains in 1 minute →

Our commitment

Four guarantees that matter to a public service

Applicants' documents never leave the departmentLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no file entrusted to a foreign third party.

Data in France, under French lawDeployment objective: processing and access within the European Union for applicants' documents; architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

The case officer prepares, the authority decidesThe agent produces verifiable analyses, checks and draft letters; no decision is automated.

Reinforced human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring, updates and logging: compliant with the requirements of the AI Act for a supporting use.

Going further

Related resources

AI agents for the public sector →Our full offer Sovereign AI hosted in France →Our sovereignty commitment Planning case officer agent →Local plan, completeness, consistency

Frequently asked questions

Your questions, our answers

Does the agent issue the permit?

No. It prepares the analysis: testing against the local plan, completeness checks, identification of the points to watch. The decision and the signature of the order remain with the competent authority. The agent works strictly in support, with no automated decision whatsoever.

Does it adapt to our local plan?

Yes. The agent is configured on your local planning documents: the regulations and zoning of the local plan (or intercommunal plan), the public utility easements, and where relevant the council map or national rules. The analysis reflects your rules, not a generic model.

What is the framing under the AI Act?

A supporting use, with no automated decision and reinforced human oversight. The agent produces analyses and draft documents that the case officer reviews and approves. Full traceability and logging meet the applicable requirements.

Is applicants' data protected?

Yes. Documents, plans and land registry data are sensitive: our agents run locally in the department 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 planning software?

No. The agent connects to your existing tools (planning software, document management, online submission platform) and complements them, without imposing a migration. We adapt the integration to your environment.

Does the agent guarantee equal treatment of applications?

It contributes to it: the same analysis grid, configured on your rules, is applied to every file, which reduces omissions and differences of judgement. The final, reasoned decision remains that of the case officer and the authority.

How long does it take to deploy an agent?

A few weeks as a rule, after a free audit that identifies the priority scope, then a phase of configuring it on your planning documents, integrating and testing before going live and training the case officers.

Let us estimate the potential in your assessment department

A few minutes to identify the most useful scope — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → Write to us

The AI agent for assessing planning applications: prepare the analysis, secure the decision

Why AI matters to assessment services — and why they hesitate

! The issue

✓ Our answer

Sovereignty of planning data: compliance & continuity of public service

Local inference

Hosting in France

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

One isolated resource per authority

Encryption & controlled access

AI Act: governed deployment

See the agent at work

The facets of the agent in assessing planning applications

Testing against the local plan

Easements & constraints

Completeness checks

Reading documents & plans

Detecting inconsistencies

Preparing the letters

Informing applicants

Planning memory

Need to go further?

Pre-assessment of applications (benefits, grants, permits)

Support for assessing pension files

Pre-assessment of social assistance (local welfare centre)

Pre-assessment of permits at the prefecture

How much time can an assessment department win back?

The stages of your AI agent project

Audit & scoping

Quote or direct sign-up

Design

Integration & testing

Rollout

Operation

A clear offer, one agent

Setup + controlled subscription

All inclusive, no setup fee

On site, you own it

Four guarantees that matter to a public service

Related resources

Your questions, our answers

Other AI solutions for the public sector

Let us estimate the potential in your assessment department