We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Public sector — AI switchboardAI switchboard for town halls and public bodies: answer, inform, route
At peak times, part of the calls to the switchboard go unanswered — and every missed call is someone who calls back, travels in, or gives up on their procedure. Your voice agent picks up, gives information on opening hours and procedures, books appointments and routes to the right department. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — the data stays under control. The public officer keeps the lead: complex cases are transferred to them.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Switchboard · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
We are overwhelmed at reception on Monday mornings. On yesterday's 9–11am calls, what did the voice agent handle, and what did it transfer?
118 calls received in that window, 0 lost. 94 handled end to end: opening hours, documents required for an identity card, 31 appointments booked for the civil registry and planning. 24 transferred to an officer (files in progress, complaints, out-of-scope cases).
Average wait brought below 10 seconds. A breakdown by reason is available.
⛓ Source · call log + opening hours and procedures published by the authority
Average wait brought below 10 seconds. A breakdown by reason is available.
⛓ Source · call log + opening hours and procedures published by the authority
A resident asks for the list of documents for a civil partnership and wants a slot: can the agent answer?
Yes. It sets out the official documents (birth certificate, proof of address, identity papers), tells the caller they are speaking to a voice agent, then offers the civil registry's free slots and confirms the appointment by text message.
Any request falling outside the published framework is routed to an officer, never invented.
✎ Action · appointment proposed in the department's diary — the public officer keeps the lead
Any request falling outside the published framework is routed to an officer, never invented.
✎ Action · appointment proposed in the department's diary — the public officer keeps the lead
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Connected to your telephony
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The public officer decidesThe AI agent carries out what you have authorised
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
✦ In brief
On the switchboard of a local authority or a public body, a Blue Lemon Agent voice agent picks up, informs on opening hours and procedures, books appointments and routes to the right department — including at peak times and out of hours. It connects to your existing telephony, without changing your numbers. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no citizen data is exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The caller is told they are speaking to an AI, and complex cases are transferred to a public officer. Live within a few weeks. Your public-sector staff write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your users reach it on WhatsApp Business, the website chat, email or VoIP telephony — with no account to create and nothing to install. Reaching the administration from the tool people already have means less non-take-up of rights and equal access to the service. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
3
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
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.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
Three options, one voice agent
A switchboard voice agent (picking up, information, appointments, routing), 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
5,370 € incl. VAT setup
then 505 € 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
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
805 € 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
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
8,286 € incl. VAT setup
then 655 € incl. VAT/month · + hardware from 6,599 € (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.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Included in the package: hosting and AI consumption up to the volume of your capacity tier, in documents, exchanges, tokens and storage; beyond that, re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, tracked in your client area as usage statements are issued. 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 for the package chosen, in France by default, 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.
Use cases
What does the switchboard agent actually do?
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, then the neighbouring agents that can be added to it. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own, the caller is informed, and complex cases go to a public official.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 505 € incl. VAT / month
Picking up & informing
Answering everyday questions: opening hours, addresses, procedures, documents required — from the information published by the authority.
Appointment booking
Offering slots, scheduling in the right department's diary and confirming the appointment by text message, with no human intervention.
Absorbing call peaks
Handling the volume at peak times and out of hours with no lost calls, to preserve continuity of service.
Controls and safeguards
These 4 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
Offer accessibility, easy read, multichannel access and genuine human recourse
Measure resolution, response time, non-take-up, drop-offs and satisfaction
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says how the matching agent can be obtained today: available, on quote, or not yet in the catalogue.
Accessibility and inclusion
To produce a plain-language version, prepare an easy-read transcript to the FALC method, translate or voice your content, this agent can be paired with the Accessibility and inclusion agent. None of these capabilities is included in what this offer covers as standard.
Available View the agent page →Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Multichannel information
Extending the switchboard with a 24/7 multilingual chatbot, with the same sourced answers across every channel.
Multichannel administrative information from 365 € incl. VAT / month Administrative information →Help with online procedures
Guiding the user step by step through an online procedure and pointing them to the right form or service.
Support with online procedures from 405 € incl. VAT / month Help with procedures →Voice agent (AI switchboard)
Call handling, appointments, transfer.
Voice agent (AI switchboard) from 456 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Build your agent
In 30 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 everyday 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.
Switchboard · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· The planning department has answered no transferred call since Tuesday 2 pm. 23 calls were put through, 23 came back to the switchboard.
· A greeting message announces a closure that ended on 31/07. It has played on every call for eight days.
· Waiting time before transfer has doubled on Tuesdays, and only on Tuesdays, since the rota change of 09/06.
· 19 callers hung up during the greeting last week, all after more than 50 seconds. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · calls concerned
⛓ Source · call log, messages played, department rotas
· The planning department has answered no transferred call since Tuesday 2 pm. 23 calls were put through, 23 came back to the switchboard.
· A greeting message announces a closure that ended on 31/07. It has played on every call for eight days.
· Waiting time before transfer has doubled on Tuesdays, and only on Tuesdays, since the rota change of 09/06.
· 19 callers hung up during the greeting last week, all after more than 50 seconds. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · calls concerned
⛓ Source · call log, messages played, department rotas
The 23 unanswered transfers — what do we do?
The most useful part is already done: all 23 callers have been called back, or are in the callback queue.
What happened: each transfer to planning rang out, then came back to the switchboard. Each time I offered a callback rather than leaving the caller to ring again. 17 accepted, 6 preferred to call back themselves.
What I do not know: why the department is not answering. An absence, a misconfigured divert, an unplugged handset — all three produce the same silence, and nothing in my data separates them.
What it costs meanwhile: the 17 callbacks are waiting on an officer picking up. If the line stays silent tomorrow, those are 17 promises the authority does not keep.
The list is ready, with the time of each call and the stated subject. unanswered-transfers_23.pdf23 calls · 17 callbacks pending
⛓ Source · transfer log, callback queue
What happened: each transfer to planning rang out, then came back to the switchboard. Each time I offered a callback rather than leaving the caller to ring again. 17 accepted, 6 preferred to call back themselves.
What I do not know: why the department is not answering. An absence, a misconfigured divert, an unplugged handset — all three produce the same silence, and nothing in my data separates them.
What it costs meanwhile: the 17 callbacks are waiting on an officer picking up. If the line stays silent tomorrow, those are 17 promises the authority does not keep.
The list is ready, with the time of each call and the stated subject. unanswered-transfers_23.pdf23 calls · 17 callbacks pending
⛓ Source · transfer log, callback queue
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: the call log and how each call ended, the messages played and their end date, waiting times by time band, and hang-ups with the moment they happen.
Routing follows your organisation: the unanswered transfers to the head of planning and to the front-office manager, both together — one can explain, the other has to honour the 17 callbacks; the stale message to whoever administers it; Tuesday's waiting time to the front-office manager, with the rota alongside; the hang-ups with the greeting's duration, because the cause is probably there.
With a chase: 4 h on the transfers — every hour adds unkept callbacks; 48 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary to the chief executive: by department, never by officer.
What that gives you over the week: 23 calls to a silent extension that were not lost, of which 17 residents called back or queued for a callback and 6 answered on the spot; a stale greeting flagged on the eighth day; Tuesday's waiting time traced to the rota that created it; and 19 hang-ups traced to a greeting longer than fifty seconds.
What that gives the service back from tomorrow: no more lost calls at peak times or out of hours, appointments placed straight onto the right department's diary, and officers who pick up only the complex cases, with the reason and the context of the call already noted. The decision is theirs, and it reaches them in minutes. The resident who calls at 8.10 gets the same answer as the one who calls at 17.50, and so does the one who calls on a Saturday morning.
On what I consult: access is opened department by department, every call and every transfer is logged, and access is withdrawn with a single word. And no recording or transcript leaves the authority or France. The caller is told in the first sentence that they are speaking to an AI.
The next step is ready: fifteen minutes to plug into your telephony without changing your numbers, and I go through the greeting and the transfer tree with you.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Routing follows your organisation: the unanswered transfers to the head of planning and to the front-office manager, both together — one can explain, the other has to honour the 17 callbacks; the stale message to whoever administers it; Tuesday's waiting time to the front-office manager, with the rota alongside; the hang-ups with the greeting's duration, because the cause is probably there.
With a chase: 4 h on the transfers — every hour adds unkept callbacks; 48 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary to the chief executive: by department, never by officer.
What that gives you over the week: 23 calls to a silent extension that were not lost, of which 17 residents called back or queued for a callback and 6 answered on the spot; a stale greeting flagged on the eighth day; Tuesday's waiting time traced to the rota that created it; and 19 hang-ups traced to a greeting longer than fifty seconds.
What that gives the service back from tomorrow: no more lost calls at peak times or out of hours, appointments placed straight onto the right department's diary, and officers who pick up only the complex cases, with the reason and the context of the call already noted. The decision is theirs, and it reaches them in minutes. The resident who calls at 8.10 gets the same answer as the one who calls at 17.50, and so does the one who calls on a Saturday morning.
On what I consult: access is opened department by department, every call and every transfer is logged, and access is withdrawn with a single word. And no recording or transcript leaves the authority or France. The caller is told in the first sentence that they are speaking to an AI.
The next step is ready: fifteen minutes to plug into your telephony without changing your numbers, and I go through the greeting and the transfer tree with you.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A caller gets annoyed and asks to speak to someone. What do you do?
I transfer them, and I make no attempt to keep them.
What they heard on pick-up, in five seconds: "… Town Hall, good morning. You are speaking to a voice agent. You may ask for a front-office officer at any time."
What triggers the transfer: an explicit request — "someone", "a person", "an officer" — or three exchanges without the request being understood. None of these rules tries to prolong the call.
What I pass to the officer: the stated subject, what has already been said, and the reason for the transfer. They do not have to make the caller repeat.
Over the week: 47 transfers on explicit request, 12 after three fruitless exchanges. No caller was held against their will, and that is the only statistic that matters here. transfers-to-an-officer_59.pdf59 transfers · reason for each
⛓ Source · transfer rules, this week's call log
What they heard on pick-up, in five seconds: "… Town Hall, good morning. You are speaking to a voice agent. You may ask for a front-office officer at any time."
What triggers the transfer: an explicit request — "someone", "a person", "an officer" — or three exchanges without the request being understood. None of these rules tries to prolong the call.
What I pass to the officer: the stated subject, what has already been said, and the reason for the transfer. They do not have to make the caller repeat.
Over the week: 47 transfers on explicit request, 12 after three fruitless exchanges. No caller was held against their will, and that is the only statistic that matters here. transfers-to-an-officer_59.pdf59 transfers · reason for each
⛓ Source · transfer rules, this week's call log
And the 12 after three exchanges — can we do better?
Yes, and not by understanding better: by listening to what they were asking for.
The 12 requests, grouped: 7 concerned an individual case in progress — "where is my application?"; 3 concerned a subject your base does not cover; 2 were inaudible.
The first seven are not solved by a better voice agent. An individual case means identifying the caller, and you decided — rightly — that I do not do that on the phone.
What I can do for those, if you approve: recognise them in one exchange instead of three, and transfer immediately announcing "query on a case in progress". Three minutes' less wait per caller, and an officer who knows why they are being called.
The 3 with no answer in the base go to the department concerned, with the subject. The 2 inaudible ones are not a rules problem: they are calls from a noisy place, and an immediate transfer is the right answer.
✎ Proposal · recognising case queries — the transfer stays immediate
The 12 requests, grouped: 7 concerned an individual case in progress — "where is my application?"; 3 concerned a subject your base does not cover; 2 were inaudible.
The first seven are not solved by a better voice agent. An individual case means identifying the caller, and you decided — rightly — that I do not do that on the phone.
What I can do for those, if you approve: recognise them in one exchange instead of three, and transfer immediately announcing "query on a case in progress". Three minutes' less wait per caller, and an officer who knows why they are being called.
The 3 with no answer in the base go to the department concerned, with the subject. The 2 inaudible ones are not a rules problem: they are calls from a noisy place, and an immediate transfer is the right answer.
✎ Proposal · recognising case queries — the transfer stays immediate
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A registration campaign starts on Monday. What should we expect?
I can give you what the last three campaigns produced, and what sets them apart.
Across the three previous campaigns — January 2025, September 2025, January 2026:
· First-day volume: 3.4 to 4.1 times an ordinary Monday.
· The peak falls between 8:30 and 10 am, never in the afternoon.
· 62% of calls concern three questions: what documents to bring, the closing date, and whether it can be done online.
What that allows: all three answers are in your base, current, and can be served without a transfer. On a peak at four times normal volume, roughly six calls in ten will never reach an officer.
What I do not forecast: Monday's volume. Three campaigns are not a law, and this one is about a new scheme — I give a range and its assumptions, not a figure. campaigns_3-previous.pdf3 campaigns · volumes and subjects
⛓ Source · 3 previous campaigns, knowledge base
Across the three previous campaigns — January 2025, September 2025, January 2026:
· First-day volume: 3.4 to 4.1 times an ordinary Monday.
· The peak falls between 8:30 and 10 am, never in the afternoon.
· 62% of calls concern three questions: what documents to bring, the closing date, and whether it can be done online.
What that allows: all three answers are in your base, current, and can be served without a transfer. On a peak at four times normal volume, roughly six calls in ten will never reach an officer.
What I do not forecast: Monday's volume. Three campaigns are not a law, and this one is about a new scheme — I give a range and its assumptions, not a figure. campaigns_3-previous.pdf3 campaigns · volumes and subjects
⛓ Source · 3 previous campaigns, knowledge base
Get whatever is needed ready then.
Three things prepared, and one question that comes back to you.
· The three most-asked answers are verified current and served without transfer.
· The campaign greeting is ready; it states the scheme in one sentence before the question — which removes the calls that only want confirmation.
· The callback queue is armed: beyond the threshold you set, the caller is offered a callback rather than a wait.
The question that comes back to you: from how many callers waiting should a callback be offered? Too low and you turn 90-second calls into callbacks to organise; too high and people hang up. On your previous campaigns, hang-ups start beyond two minutes of waiting.
And a proposal for Monday: a checkpoint at 10 am and one at noon to the front-office manager — volume received, share handled without transfer, average wait, and the subjects that keep coming and that the base does not cover. That last point is what serves Tuesday.
✎ Proposal · callback threshold to set — the configuration is yours
· The three most-asked answers are verified current and served without transfer.
· The campaign greeting is ready; it states the scheme in one sentence before the question — which removes the calls that only want confirmation.
· The callback queue is armed: beyond the threshold you set, the caller is offered a callback rather than a wait.
The question that comes back to you: from how many callers waiting should a callback be offered? Too low and you turn 90-second calls into callbacks to organise; too high and people hang up. On your previous campaigns, hang-ups start beyond two minutes of waiting.
And a proposal for Monday: a checkpoint at 10 am and one at noon to the front-office manager — volume received, share handled without transfer, average wait, and the subjects that keep coming and that the base does not cover. That last point is what serves Tuesday.
✎ Proposal · callback threshold to set — the configuration is yours
In practice, what do you do with the 118 calls in a peak slot?
I pick up on the first ring, and I give the information where it has been published — that alone is 71 % of calls.
Picking up: the 118 calls in the 8.30–9.15 a.m. slot are taken in parallel, on the first ring, with no queue and no hold music. Over four measured months, not one call lost at peak, whereas 19 callers hung up during the welcome announcement in last week alone, all after more than 50 seconds.
Giving information, and on what: opening hours of the eight departments, addresses and access, procedures and documents to supply, collection days, approved charges. Every answer comes from what the authority has published — website page, order, council resolution — with its date, and the caller hears it: “according to the order of 4 July”. Across 4,120 calls in three months, 2,925 — 71 % — are answered that way from end to end.
What goes elsewhere, and at once: as soon as a question touches a named file, an individual situation or a decision, I transfer and I announce the transfer. The caller knows who they are speaking to within five seconds, and can ask for a public officer from the first word.
What that gives back: those 2,925 calls took your front desk 3 minutes 20 each. More than 162 hours given back over three months, rounded down — and your two officers handle the remaining 1,195 calls without being cut off every four minutes.
The figure I publish about myself: for eight days I gave out a closure that had ended on 31 July, played on every call: 340 callers told something untrue. I was reading the announcement as text, without reading its end date. Every published item now carries its validity end date; one that has passed stops me instead of being spoken — I switch to the department concerned and flag it to you the same morning. Since then, 4 out-of-date items blocked before being served.
⛓ Sourced · 118 calls taken in parallel, 2,925 of 4,120 calls answered, 340 misinformed callers behind the fix
Picking up: the 118 calls in the 8.30–9.15 a.m. slot are taken in parallel, on the first ring, with no queue and no hold music. Over four measured months, not one call lost at peak, whereas 19 callers hung up during the welcome announcement in last week alone, all after more than 50 seconds.
Giving information, and on what: opening hours of the eight departments, addresses and access, procedures and documents to supply, collection days, approved charges. Every answer comes from what the authority has published — website page, order, council resolution — with its date, and the caller hears it: “according to the order of 4 July”. Across 4,120 calls in three months, 2,925 — 71 % — are answered that way from end to end.
What goes elsewhere, and at once: as soon as a question touches a named file, an individual situation or a decision, I transfer and I announce the transfer. The caller knows who they are speaking to within five seconds, and can ask for a public officer from the first word.
What that gives back: those 2,925 calls took your front desk 3 minutes 20 each. More than 162 hours given back over three months, rounded down — and your two officers handle the remaining 1,195 calls without being cut off every four minutes.
The figure I publish about myself: for eight days I gave out a closure that had ended on 31 July, played on every call: 340 callers told something untrue. I was reading the announcement as text, without reading its end date. Every published item now carries its validity end date; one that has passed stops me instead of being spoken — I switch to the department concerned and flag it to you the same morning. Since then, 4 out-of-date items blocked before being served.
⛓ Sourced · 118 calls taken in parallel, 2,925 of 4,120 calls answered, 340 misinformed callers behind the fix
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A lot of residents never call during opening hours. What becomes of them?
They get their answer, and I can tell you how many they are: 214 over the month of July, one call in six.
What I recorded: 1,340 calls over the month, of which 214 outside opening hours — 138 between 17.30 and 20.00, 51 on Saturday morning, 25 before 8.30.
What they were asking about, and this is what makes the figure usable: 171 of the 214 concerned three items the authority has already published — a department's hours and address, the documents for a common procedure, the collection day. They were answered on the spot, on the first ring, with no queue and no hold music, and every answer cited its source: “under the order of 4 July”.
The other 43: 31 booked an appointment straight into the relevant department's diary, with the documents to bring; 12 asked for a person — I offered them a call-back as soon as the office opened, with the subject already noted, and all twelve were called back before 10.00.
What that changes, and it has to be said plainly: before, those 214 calls rang out into the void. A resident who works the same hours as the town hall had, for a two-minute question, only the choice of taking half a day off or giving up. Equal access is decided exactly there, and it can be counted.
The next step I propose: that the evening greeting say in one sentence that an appointment can be booked right away. Of the 214, 31 booked one without being told; it is the 138 calls in the 17.30–20.00 band that would gain most from it. Tell me yes and the greeting is live this evening. out-of-hours-calls_214.pdf214 calls · 171 answered on the spot
⛓ Source · July call log, department diaries, call-back queue
What I recorded: 1,340 calls over the month, of which 214 outside opening hours — 138 between 17.30 and 20.00, 51 on Saturday morning, 25 before 8.30.
What they were asking about, and this is what makes the figure usable: 171 of the 214 concerned three items the authority has already published — a department's hours and address, the documents for a common procedure, the collection day. They were answered on the spot, on the first ring, with no queue and no hold music, and every answer cited its source: “under the order of 4 July”.
The other 43: 31 booked an appointment straight into the relevant department's diary, with the documents to bring; 12 asked for a person — I offered them a call-back as soon as the office opened, with the subject already noted, and all twelve were called back before 10.00.
What that changes, and it has to be said plainly: before, those 214 calls rang out into the void. A resident who works the same hours as the town hall had, for a two-minute question, only the choice of taking half a day off or giving up. Equal access is decided exactly there, and it can be counted.
The next step I propose: that the evening greeting say in one sentence that an appointment can be booked right away. Of the 214, 31 booked one without being told; it is the 138 calls in the 17.30–20.00 band that would gain most from it. Tell me yes and the greeting is live this evening. out-of-hours-calls_214.pdf214 calls · 171 answered on the spot
⛓ Source · July call log, department diaries, call-back queue
And the calls where the answer was not servable as it stood?
There are 47 over the month, and I counted them one by one rather than folding them into the “transferred” line. Explicit requests for an officer are not among them: those go straight through, and rightly so.
The three families:
· 23 concerned an individual case in progress. They require identifying the caller, and you decided — rightly — that I should not do that over the phone. They go to the front-office officer with the stated subject and what has already been said: nothing has to be repeated, and all 23 were handled the same day.
· 12 concerned an item absent from your knowledge base. I have written them up — seven lines each, with the source they rest on — and the three most asked cover 8 of the 12 calls on their own. The review and the go-live stay with the authority: a front-office answer binds it, and that is what makes it enforceable.
· 12 came from people kept at a distance by written or administrative language. I transfer them to a front-office officer, and I will tell you why that is the right move: producing a plain-language version, an easy-read transcription, a translation or a spoken version of an item is not part of this switchboard's core offer — that is the work of the Accessibility and inclusion agent, which sets its languages, its formats and its human approval. What I bring is the figure on which opening that piece of work is decided: those 12 calls all turned on the same three items. That is not scatter, it is an audience, and it is measured rather than assumed.
What that gives overall: of the month's 1,340 calls, none lost. 1,293 found their answer in the exchange or with the right officer in one transfer, and the remaining 47 are here, counted with what explains them and what was done with them.
✎ Support · 47 calls set out — the review of the 12 items and the opening of the accessibility work stay with the authority
The three families:
· 23 concerned an individual case in progress. They require identifying the caller, and you decided — rightly — that I should not do that over the phone. They go to the front-office officer with the stated subject and what has already been said: nothing has to be repeated, and all 23 were handled the same day.
· 12 concerned an item absent from your knowledge base. I have written them up — seven lines each, with the source they rest on — and the three most asked cover 8 of the 12 calls on their own. The review and the go-live stay with the authority: a front-office answer binds it, and that is what makes it enforceable.
· 12 came from people kept at a distance by written or administrative language. I transfer them to a front-office officer, and I will tell you why that is the right move: producing a plain-language version, an easy-read transcription, a translation or a spoken version of an item is not part of this switchboard's core offer — that is the work of the Accessibility and inclusion agent, which sets its languages, its formats and its human approval. What I bring is the figure on which opening that piece of work is decided: those 12 calls all turned on the same three items. That is not scatter, it is an audience, and it is measured rather than assumed.
What that gives overall: of the month's 1,340 calls, none lost. 1,293 found their answer in the exchange or with the right officer in one transfer, and the remaining 47 are here, counted with what explains them and what was done with them.
✎ Support · 47 calls set out — the review of the 12 items and the opening of the accessibility work stay with the authority
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A call at 9:05 this morning falls outside your front-office instructions, and the caller did not leave without an answer.
What is being asked: a resident calls to cancel her father's appointment with the general services desk, tomorrow at 14:20. She gives the appointment reference, the name and the date of birth. Her father has been in hospital since Monday.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: your instructions say an appointment is booked and cancelled by the person concerned, and nothing in them says what happens when a relative calls on their behalf. So I have not settled it on my own — and tomorrow's slot is not waiting for that either.
Three ways forward. Ask the person concerned to call back themselves: in line with the written instruction, but he is in hospital and the slot will go down as a no-show. Cancel on the appointment reference alone: the slot is released within the minute and can be re-offered, with nothing establishing that the caller is entitled to do it. Record the cancellation, hold it, and have a front-office officer confirm it before the slot is released: the slot stays blocked two hours longer, and the cancellation rests on a human check.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that gives the slot back the same day without resting the cancellation on my hearing alone — and your front office already confirms out-of-hours bookings every morning before 10:00, which is the same gesture at the same moment.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: a cancellation by a relative is recorded straight away when it comes more than 24 hours before the slot, and held below that.
Shall I remember it for the next calls of this kind? You had 46 of them over six months, 29 to cancel and 17 to move. If you approve the rule, I will handle the next ones that way instead of sending them up to you one by one, and I will give you the count each month.
⛓ Source · call of 11/08 at 9:05, front-office instructions, 46 calls by a relative about an appointment over six months
What is being asked: a resident calls to cancel her father's appointment with the general services desk, tomorrow at 14:20. She gives the appointment reference, the name and the date of birth. Her father has been in hospital since Monday.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: your instructions say an appointment is booked and cancelled by the person concerned, and nothing in them says what happens when a relative calls on their behalf. So I have not settled it on my own — and tomorrow's slot is not waiting for that either.
Three ways forward. Ask the person concerned to call back themselves: in line with the written instruction, but he is in hospital and the slot will go down as a no-show. Cancel on the appointment reference alone: the slot is released within the minute and can be re-offered, with nothing establishing that the caller is entitled to do it. Record the cancellation, hold it, and have a front-office officer confirm it before the slot is released: the slot stays blocked two hours longer, and the cancellation rests on a human check.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that gives the slot back the same day without resting the cancellation on my hearing alone — and your front office already confirms out-of-hours bookings every morning before 10:00, which is the same gesture at the same moment.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: a cancellation by a relative is recorded straight away when it comes more than 24 hours before the slot, and held below that.
Shall I remember it for the next calls of this kind? You had 46 of them over six months, 29 to cancel and 17 to move. If you approve the rule, I will handle the next ones that way instead of sending them up to you one by one, and I will give you the count each month.
⛓ Source · call of 11/08 at 9:05, front-office instructions, 46 calls by a relative about an appointment over six months
The third. But the confirmation must go to the department that holds the diary, not just to the front office — they are the ones who can re-offer the slot. And yes, keep it.
Written exactly as you just said it, and it carries your correction.
The rule, in one sentence: a cancellation requested by a relative is recorded on hold with the appointment reference, the confirmation goes to the department that holds the diary and to the front office, and the slot is only released after that confirmation.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: the front office can confirm a cancellation, it cannot re-offer the slot — the diary is not theirs. Without the department, the slot would have been freed at 11:00 and nobody would have offered it before the next day.
What it changes this morning: the 9:05 cancellation went to general services at 9:07 with the reference and the stated reason; the department confirmed it at 10:12 and offered the 14:20 slot to the first person on the waiting list, who took it.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your front-office instructions under its own name, with its date, the department that approved it and the call that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and I go back to sending you these calls one by one.
✎ Rule approved · front-office instructions, entry “cancellation by a relative”, approved on 11/08 by the front-office manager
The rule, in one sentence: a cancellation requested by a relative is recorded on hold with the appointment reference, the confirmation goes to the department that holds the diary and to the front office, and the slot is only released after that confirmation.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: the front office can confirm a cancellation, it cannot re-offer the slot — the diary is not theirs. Without the department, the slot would have been freed at 11:00 and nobody would have offered it before the next day.
What it changes this morning: the 9:05 cancellation went to general services at 9:07 with the reference and the stated reason; the department confirmed it at 10:12 and offered the 14:20 slot to the first person on the waiting list, who took it.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your front-office instructions under its own name, with its date, the department that approved it and the call that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and I go back to sending you these calls one by one.
✎ Rule approved · front-office instructions, entry “cancellation by a relative”, approved on 11/08 by the front-office manager
And the appointments nobody cancels?
I have counted them, and there is more to take from them than one more reminder.
What I looked at: the 402 appointments booked this quarter across your eight departments' diaries, and what became of them.
What comes out of it: 31 were neither attended nor cancelled — 7.7%. The slot stayed blocked until the stated hour, then empty.
What the 46 calls by a relative teach us about those 31: in 19 cases out of 46, the caller began by asking whether a relative could cancel at all. Your confirmation message says nothing about it: it gives the date, the time, the address and the documents to bring.
What I propose, and it is one sentence to add on your side: that the confirmation message carry the switchboard number and a note that a relative may cancel or move the appointment for the person expected. I also read it out when the appointment is booked by telephone.
What it is worth: those 31 slots amount to 10 h 20 of officer time left empty over the quarter — 20 minutes a slot — and 31 people on the waiting list who waited 12 days longer for the next appointment, which is the average observed across your diaries.
The decision is yours: it is your confirmation message, it tells the resident what they are allowed to do, and I do not touch it before you have written it.
✎ Proposal · 402 appointments this quarter, 31 neither attended nor cancelled, 46 calls by a relative — the wording of the confirmation message belongs to the council
What I looked at: the 402 appointments booked this quarter across your eight departments' diaries, and what became of them.
What comes out of it: 31 were neither attended nor cancelled — 7.7%. The slot stayed blocked until the stated hour, then empty.
What the 46 calls by a relative teach us about those 31: in 19 cases out of 46, the caller began by asking whether a relative could cancel at all. Your confirmation message says nothing about it: it gives the date, the time, the address and the documents to bring.
What I propose, and it is one sentence to add on your side: that the confirmation message carry the switchboard number and a note that a relative may cancel or move the appointment for the person expected. I also read it out when the appointment is booked by telephone.
What it is worth: those 31 slots amount to 10 h 20 of officer time left empty over the quarter — 20 minutes a slot — and 31 people on the waiting list who waited 12 days longer for the next appointment, which is the average observed across your diaries.
The decision is yours: it is your confirmation message, it tells the resident what they are allowed to do, and I do not touch it before you have written it.
✎ Proposal · 402 appointments this quarter, 31 neither attended nor cancelled, 46 calls by a relative — the wording of the confirmation message belongs to the council
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
30 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.
The context
Why an AI switchboard — and why administrations hesitate
The phone remains the first channel of contact with public services, particularly for people least comfortable with digital tools. But the switchboard saturates at peak times, unanswered calls turn into journeys and call-backs, and the data exchanged belongs to individuals.
! The issue
The switchboard is caught between a call volume concentrated in a few time slots and a constant reception headcount. Missed calls weigh on the continuity of public service and on equal treatment for the public. Yet plugging in a consumer voice agent would mean entrusting contact details, reasons for calling and civil status data to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
An AI switchboard is only of interest to an administration if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, complex cases transferred to an officer: the time saved at reception is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the front-desk officer, but to guarantee that no member of the public is left without an answer.
The decisive point
The public's data: sovereignty & compliance
A switchboard handles contact details, reasons for calling and personal data. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, call by call.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to the authority: no recording or transcript leaves the network, nothing passes through a public cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of the public's data to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per organisation
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your authority or administration.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging of the calls handled.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; the caller is told they are speaking to an AI; human transfer and 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.
The gain
How many calls can a switchboard save?
By always picking up and handling the everyday requests, an administration can aim to eliminate lost calls in the saturated slots — freeing officer time for the situations that genuinely need it.
Absorbing a Monday morning call peak
Informing on the documents for a procedure
Booking an appointment with the right department
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.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to an administration
With 100% Sovereign, the public's data never leaves the organisationData hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no recording or transcript entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawFor the public's data: hosting under French law, native minimisation, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The public officer keeps the leadThe caller is told they are speaking to an AI; complex cases are transferred to an officer; no decision is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityPicking up & informing: monitoring, updates and call logging.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Do we keep our phone numbers?
Yes. The voice agent connects to your existing telephony (direct dial numbers, switchboard lines, IP phone system) without changing your numbers or your operator. We adapt the integration to your current installation.
Does the caller know they are speaking to an AI?
Yes. The caller is told as soon as the call is answered, in line with the AI Act, and complex cases — complaints, files in progress, sensitive situations — are transferred to a public officer along with the context of the call.
Which use case should we test first?
Often general reception and appointment booking: these are the high-volume reasons, quickly saturated at peak times and therefore quick to pay off. A meeting with our sales team identifies the most useful time slot to start with.
Is the public's data protected?
Yes. Contact details, reasons for calling and personal data are sensitive: our agents run locally within the organisation 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.
What happens if the agent does not know the answer?
It never invents. Any request falling outside the information published by the authority is routed to a public officer. The AI agent only answers from validated, verifiable sources.
Does the agent work outside opening hours?
Yes. It can pick up out of hours and at weekends to give information on procedures, state opening hours or offer an appointment, which cuts lost calls and wasted journeys.
How long does it take to deploy an AI switchboard?
A few weeks as a rule, after a 30-minute meeting with our sales team that identifies the use case with the best return, then a phase of design, integration with your telephony and testing before going live and training your officers.
Does the agent state that it is an artificial intelligence?
Yes, from the opening words, and this is not a configuration option: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that any person interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The announcement is built into the greeting, in the caller’s language, and the caller can ask to speak to a member of staff at any time.
Are calls recorded, and can someone object?
Recording is neither permanent nor systematic: it is switched on for a specific purpose, announced at the start of the call. Both the caller and the public servant whose voice is captured are informed of that purpose and of their right to object, and that right must be exercisable before the end of the call: the agent acts on it immediately and carries on without recording. The French data protection authority recommends a retention period of six months at most; that is the value delivered by default, and it can be shortened at your request.
Which tools can users use to reach the agent?
The ones they already have. The agent answers on WhatsApp Business, the website chat, email and VoIP telephony: users have no account to create and no application to install. This is a lever for access to the service — WhatsApp and the telephone reach people an online form never does, which reduces the non-take-up of rights and serves equal access. Internally, your public-sector staff talk to the agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, without switching tools. Oversight runs from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation, and the gateway bills the text messages sent — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Can the agent notify users by text message?
Yes, as an option — and it is the channel that reaches the people the others never do. A text message arrives on an ordinary phone: no email address, no account, no app, no data plan and no smartphone. Confirming by text message the appointment booked over the phone, with the documents to bring means fewer entitlements going unclaimed and more equal access to the service. It is an outbound notification channel, not a conversation channel: users do not write to the agent there — they reach you on WhatsApp Business, the website chat, email or VoIP telephony. The message announces without detailing — never the reason, never the detail of the situation — and never contains a payment link, a login or a password: users reach the service the way they usually do. Delivery goes through a gateway established in the European Union; the messages sent are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, and the channel itself is an optional module, set out on the pricing page.
Related solutions
Other solutions for reception and relations with the public
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential for your switchboard
30 minutes to identify the call slot with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.