● Public sector offer — Rule-making
Draft texts: a first version grounded in your body of texts
Drawing up a regulatory note or a circular means drawing on the texts in force, taking up the established wordings and checking consistency with the existing body of texts. Your agent puts together a first version on those foundations, citing the texts relied on, and flags the points of interaction to examine. Hosted in France: your drafts in progress stay within your administration. Legal approval rests with your department.
Hosted in France
Drafts in progress protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Draft texts · hosted in France
Prepare a draft circular on this scheme.
First version put together: legal basis cited, wordings taken from your established texts, structure in line with your drafting conventions.
Three points of interaction with existing texts are flagged for examination.
Every provision proposed refers back to the text that grounds it.
🔗 Sourced · body of regulations and established texts
Three points of interaction with existing texts are flagged for examination.
Every provision proposed refers back to the text that grounds it.
🔗 Sourced · body of regulations and established texts
The scheme calls for a new provision.
I gather the neighbouring texts and the wordings used in comparable cases, flagging that no direct basis exists.
Creating a new provision rests with the legal department and the authority that enacts it: the agent prepares, it does not legislate.
✎ Support · material gathered, legal drafting
Creating a new provision rests with the legal department and the authority that enacts it: the agent prepares, it does not legislate.
✎ Support · material gathered, legal drafting
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Drafts hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
Your legal department decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent drafting agent puts together a first version of your notes and circulars: legal basis cited, established wordings taken up, structure in line with your conventions, and points of interaction with the existing body of texts flagged. Creating a new provision rests with the legal department. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
rule-making uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your volume of texts produced and the breadth of your body of texts is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to drawing up your texts?
A first version grounded in the existing body of texts saves most of the drafting time.
! The issue
Drafting a regulatory text calls for finding the legal basis, taking up the established wordings and checking how it fits with what exists. All three are documentary and methodical. The agent takes them on and cites the texts relied on, so that the legal reading can be about substance.
✓ Our answer
The legal department starts from a first version grounded in the body of texts, with the points of interaction already flagged. Creating a new provision, settling a wording and having the text enacted rest with it and with the competent authority. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your drafts in progress, often confidential before publication, do not leave your perimeter.
The decisive point
Your drafts in progress: sovereignty & compliance
A draft text in preparation is confidential until it is published. Here is how it is protected.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no draft text and no element of the body of texts leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your draft texts and your body of regulations: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your drafts in progress, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your administration and its body of regulations.
Every provision refers back to its basis
The legal basis and the texts relied on are cited for every provision proposed; the absence of a direct basis is flagged. Encryption, role-based access and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no new provision is created and no text is enacted; 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.
- 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 drafts that are confidential before publication and texts tied to a reform in preparation, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Draft texts · hosted in France
Four flags this morning across your texts in force.
· A 2021 order cites a resolution that was repealed in 2023. The citation points to an act that no longer exists.
· Two orders in force regulate the same thing in opposite directions on the same street: one permits Saturday-morning parking, the other prohibits it.
· A March staff notice refers to a form the department stopped using in April.
· Eleven temporary orders have passed their end date without being repealed. The oldest expired in 2024 — it has no effect, but it is still in the register of acts. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 contradiction
⛓ Source · register of acts, register of resolutions, staff notices
· A 2021 order cites a resolution that was repealed in 2023. The citation points to an act that no longer exists.
· Two orders in force regulate the same thing in opposite directions on the same street: one permits Saturday-morning parking, the other prohibits it.
· A March staff notice refers to a form the department stopped using in April.
· Eleven temporary orders have passed their end date without being repealed. The oldest expired in 2024 — it has no effect, but it is still in the register of acts. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 contradiction
⛓ Source · register of acts, register of resolutions, staff notices
The two contradictory orders — can you repeal one?
No, and I will not tell you which should fall either.
What I record: the 2019 order permits parking on rue des Exemples on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.; the 2024 one prohibits it on all days along the same stretch, and it does not repeal the first.
Why I do not decide: the later act often prevails in practice, but not always — the first may cover a particular use the second did not mean to remove. That is read in the intention, not in the dates, and the intention is in your resolutions, not in my field of view.
What it produces today: a driver ticketed on a Saturday can produce the 2019 order. That is the kind of contradiction discovered before a judge, and it is better discovered this morning.
What I prepared: both texts side by side, the contradicting passages highlighted, and a draft repealing order whose citations are copied from the two acts, and whose operative part is left for you to draft. 2-orders_contradiction.pdf2 texts · passages highlighted · draft repeal
⛓ Source · order of 14/05/2019, order of 03/09/2024, register of acts
What I record: the 2019 order permits parking on rue des Exemples on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.; the 2024 one prohibits it on all days along the same stretch, and it does not repeal the first.
Why I do not decide: the later act often prevails in practice, but not always — the first may cover a particular use the second did not mean to remove. That is read in the intention, not in the dates, and the intention is in your resolutions, not in my field of view.
What it produces today: a driver ticketed on a Saturday can produce the 2019 order. That is the kind of contradiction discovered before a judge, and it is better discovered this morning.
What I prepared: both texts side by side, the contradicting passages highlighted, and a draft repealing order whose citations are copied from the two acts, and whose operative part is left for you to draft. 2-orders_contradiction.pdf2 texts · passages highlighted · draft repeal
⛓ Source · order of 14/05/2019, order of 03/09/2024, register of acts
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I continuously reread what you have opened to me: your register of acts, your resolutions, your staff notices, and the end dates your texts set for themselves.
Routing follows the nature of the text: a contradiction between two orders goes to legal services and to the issuing department, both together; a citation gone stale to the issuing department; a notice referring to a withdrawn form to its author; expired temporary orders in a single list, once a quarter.
With a chase: 7 days on a contradiction, 30 days on the rest — a stale citation is not an emergency, it is a debt, and clearing it in batches costs less than eleven round trips.
Then a quarterly summary: by type of defect, never by drafter.
What this arrangement gives you, in figures. Every act stays signed by the authority that takes it, and I do everything that comes before that signature: the two contradictory orders set side by side, passages highlighted, with a draft repeal whose citations are copied from your own acts; the eleven expired temporary orders gathered into a single act — one signature instead of eleven; the staff notice with its two lines to change, marked. A citation is never written from memory: I copy it from the act, with its date, and leave blank what is not in the file — that is the only way a citation does not make the act challengeable. And a text absent from the register is invisible to me: tell me which one and it is in there within a minute.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Routing follows the nature of the text: a contradiction between two orders goes to legal services and to the issuing department, both together; a citation gone stale to the issuing department; a notice referring to a withdrawn form to its author; expired temporary orders in a single list, once a quarter.
With a chase: 7 days on a contradiction, 30 days on the rest — a stale citation is not an emergency, it is a debt, and clearing it in batches costs less than eleven round trips.
Then a quarterly summary: by type of defect, never by drafter.
What this arrangement gives you, in figures. Every act stays signed by the authority that takes it, and I do everything that comes before that signature: the two contradictory orders set side by side, passages highlighted, with a draft repeal whose citations are copied from your own acts; the eleven expired temporary orders gathered into a single act — one signature instead of eleven; the staff notice with its two lines to change, marked. A citation is never written from memory: I copy it from the act, with its date, and leave blank what is not in the file — that is the only way a citation does not make the act challengeable. And a text absent from the register is invisible to me: tell me which one and it is in there within a minute.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Draft me an order closing a playground.
The body is written, the citations are copied, and two lines stay blank.
What I drafted: the subject, the exact perimeter taken from your plan, the duration, the display arrangements, and the enforcement article — reusing the wording of your last four closure orders, so this one resembles yours and not a generic template.
What I copied: the citations of your own acts — the resolution of 12/02/2024 giving you management of the playground, and the order of 08/06/2023 on opening hours. I have read them, they are in the register, and I give their dates.
What I left blank: two citations of general legislation, which I do not hold. I do not write those from memory — a wrong citation makes the act challengeable and is invisible on rereading, because it looks exactly like a correct one.
And a third blank: the grounds. A closure order with no stated grounds is fragile, and I do not invent grounds: they are in the report of the officer who inspected the playground. draft-order_closure.pdfBody drafted · 2 citations copied · 3 blanks
⛓ Source · resolution of 12/02/2024, order of 08/06/2023, 4 earlier closure orders
What I drafted: the subject, the exact perimeter taken from your plan, the duration, the display arrangements, and the enforcement article — reusing the wording of your last four closure orders, so this one resembles yours and not a generic template.
What I copied: the citations of your own acts — the resolution of 12/02/2024 giving you management of the playground, and the order of 08/06/2023 on opening hours. I have read them, they are in the register, and I give their dates.
What I left blank: two citations of general legislation, which I do not hold. I do not write those from memory — a wrong citation makes the act challengeable and is invisible on rereading, because it looks exactly like a correct one.
And a third blank: the grounds. A closure order with no stated grounds is fragile, and I do not invent grounds: they are in the report of the officer who inspected the playground. draft-order_closure.pdfBody drafted · 2 citations copied · 3 blanks
⛓ Source · resolution of 12/02/2024, order of 08/06/2023, 4 earlier closure orders
Why not put in the general citations? You know them.
I believe I know them, and that is exactly the problem.
What a wrong citation produces: it does not leap out. A misnumbered article, a repealed text, a reference renumbered in a recodification — all of it looks just like a correct citation, and gets reread without anyone stopping.
What I can do instead, and it is better: your four earlier closure orders carry citations. I have read them, and I tell you which ones recur, with the date of the act I found each in. These are no longer references from my memory: they are your references, with their provenance.
What that leaves you to do: check those citations are still current — thirty seconds' work when you know where to look, and half a day when you start from nothing.
Where the line falls: I copy what I have read, I recite nothing. An agent that cites a text it does not have in front of it exposes you to a risk you did not ask for. recurring-citations_4-orders.pdfCitations found · act and date of provenance
✎ Support · recurring citations found in your acts — checking stays with the department
What a wrong citation produces: it does not leap out. A misnumbered article, a repealed text, a reference renumbered in a recodification — all of it looks just like a correct citation, and gets reread without anyone stopping.
What I can do instead, and it is better: your four earlier closure orders carry citations. I have read them, and I tell you which ones recur, with the date of the act I found each in. These are no longer references from my memory: they are your references, with their provenance.
What that leaves you to do: check those citations are still current — thirty seconds' work when you know where to look, and half a day when you start from nothing.
Where the line falls: I copy what I have read, I recite nothing. An agent that cites a text it does not have in front of it exposes you to a risk you did not ask for. recurring-citations_4-orders.pdfCitations found · act and date of provenance
✎ Support · recurring citations found in your acts — checking stays with the department
For a draft by-law, we need to be able to say what it rests on.
Every proposed provision arrives with its legal basis cited — and where I find none, the line stays blank rather than being padded.
What the draft I hand you carries: for each of the 9 articles of the draft traffic by-law, the text that grounds it, its exact article and the version in force at the date of the draft — the local authorities code for the mayor's policing power, the highway code for traffic measures, your own resolutions for what falls to them. The recitals are copied from the texts themselves, never from an earlier by-law: that is how a dead recital propagates from act to act for years.
What the cited legal basis has already prevented: your 2021 by-law cites a resolution repealed in 2023 — the recital points to an act that no longer exists. I ran the same check over your 214 by-laws in force: 6 further dead recitals, listed with the replacing act where one exists.
What stays blank, and why that is a service: of the 9 articles, 2 have no legal basis I can cite — restricting use of a municipal facility to residents, and the retention period for a document. The line stays empty and flagged, with the question to put to your legal department. An approximate legal basis is more dangerous than a missing one: a gap is visible and gets filled, an approximation gets copied.
What that gives back: finding and checking the recitals of a draft took 1 h 40; reading over recitals already copied and dated takes 20 minutes. Across 90 acts a year, more than 120 hours given back, rounded down.
What does not move: the draft stays a draft. Final wording, signature and legal appraisal belong to your legal department and to the authority that signs.
The figure that does not flatter me: of my first 40 drafts, 5 cited an article in a version predating its amendment — 12.5 %: the number was right, the content had changed. I was citing a reference without citing its version date. Every article cited now carries the version in force and the date I read it, and a draft whose cited text has moved since is blocked instead of going out: over the next 120 drafts, no out-of-date recital.
⛓ Sourced · 9 articles with their legal basis cited, 214 by-laws checked, 6 dead recitals found
What the draft I hand you carries: for each of the 9 articles of the draft traffic by-law, the text that grounds it, its exact article and the version in force at the date of the draft — the local authorities code for the mayor's policing power, the highway code for traffic measures, your own resolutions for what falls to them. The recitals are copied from the texts themselves, never from an earlier by-law: that is how a dead recital propagates from act to act for years.
What the cited legal basis has already prevented: your 2021 by-law cites a resolution repealed in 2023 — the recital points to an act that no longer exists. I ran the same check over your 214 by-laws in force: 6 further dead recitals, listed with the replacing act where one exists.
What stays blank, and why that is a service: of the 9 articles, 2 have no legal basis I can cite — restricting use of a municipal facility to residents, and the retention period for a document. The line stays empty and flagged, with the question to put to your legal department. An approximate legal basis is more dangerous than a missing one: a gap is visible and gets filled, an approximation gets copied.
What that gives back: finding and checking the recitals of a draft took 1 h 40; reading over recitals already copied and dated takes 20 minutes. Across 90 acts a year, more than 120 hours given back, rounded down.
What does not move: the draft stays a draft. Final wording, signature and legal appraisal belong to your legal department and to the authority that signs.
The figure that does not flatter me: of my first 40 drafts, 5 cited an article in a version predating its amendment — 12.5 %: the number was right, the content had changed. I was citing a reference without citing its version date. Every article cited now carries the version in force and the date I read it, and a draft whose cited text has moved since is blocked instead of going out: over the next 120 drafts, no out-of-date recital.
⛓ Sourced · 9 articles with their legal basis cited, 214 by-laws checked, 6 dead recitals found
This new text — what does it touch in what exists?
Three acts, and the three do not call for the same thing.
· One order to repeal: the 08/06/2023 one on playground hours, entirely absorbed by the new text. Leaving it in force would recreate exactly the contradiction we saw this morning.
· One staff notice to amend: it refers to the hours in the repealed order. Two lines to change, and I have marked them for you.
· One resolution to leave alone: the 2024 one gives you management of the playground; it is untouched. I say so because the reflex is often to redo everything, and an act amended for no reason is an act weakened.
What I have drafted, and why it stands apart: a repeal article that is explicit, named and dated, rather than a repeal slipped into the body of the new order — a repeal buried in an article of a text about something else gets lost, and in six months nobody will know that order repealed the previous one. It is written, its citations copied from the repealed act with their dates, and it is waiting on the signature. 3-acts-affected.pdf1 to repeal · 1 to amend · 1 to leave
⛓ Source · register of acts, staff notice of 15/03/2026, resolution of 12/02/2024
· One order to repeal: the 08/06/2023 one on playground hours, entirely absorbed by the new text. Leaving it in force would recreate exactly the contradiction we saw this morning.
· One staff notice to amend: it refers to the hours in the repealed order. Two lines to change, and I have marked them for you.
· One resolution to leave alone: the 2024 one gives you management of the playground; it is untouched. I say so because the reflex is often to redo everything, and an act amended for no reason is an act weakened.
What I have drafted, and why it stands apart: a repeal article that is explicit, named and dated, rather than a repeal slipped into the body of the new order — a repeal buried in an article of a text about something else gets lost, and in six months nobody will know that order repealed the previous one. It is written, its citations copied from the repealed act with their dates, and it is waiting on the signature. 3-acts-affected.pdf1 to repeal · 1 to amend · 1 to leave
⛓ Source · register of acts, staff notice of 15/03/2026, resolution of 12/02/2024
And the eleven expired temporary orders?
They have no effect, and that is precisely why they deserve handling.
Their position: each set itself an end date and it has passed. They produce nothing any more — legally there is no urgency.
What they produce anyway: they sit in the register of acts. A resident consulting the register finds eleven texts that appear to be in force, and nothing on the document says they are spent. The first instinct of anyone reading them is to believe they apply.
What I propose, and it is very little work: a single order recording the expiry of all eleven, with each one's end date copied from its own text. One act, one signature.
What I keep, and why: all eleven stay in the register — a spent act is still an act that existed, and a register from which texts disappear becomes a register nobody can rely on. What I add to it: for each one, the note of expiry and its date, carried by the single order I have drafted for you — eleven texts put back in their real position with one signature.
The gain: the register says what applies, which is precisely what it is asked to do. 11-expired-orders.pdf11 texts · end dates copied
✎ Proposal · a single act — no text removed from the register
Their position: each set itself an end date and it has passed. They produce nothing any more — legally there is no urgency.
What they produce anyway: they sit in the register of acts. A resident consulting the register finds eleven texts that appear to be in force, and nothing on the document says they are spent. The first instinct of anyone reading them is to believe they apply.
What I propose, and it is very little work: a single order recording the expiry of all eleven, with each one's end date copied from its own text. One act, one signature.
What I keep, and why: all eleven stay in the register — a spent act is still an act that existed, and a register from which texts disappear becomes a register nobody can rely on. What I add to it: for each one, the note of expiry and its date, carried by the single order I have drafted for you — eleven texts put back in their real position with one signature.
The gain: the register says what applies, which is precisely what it is asked to do. 11-expired-orders.pdf11 texts · end dates copied
✎ Proposal · a single act — no text removed from the register
And the effect on what already exists?
Those are the points of interaction, and I flag them for examination without settling them.
What I cross-checked: the draft against your 214 by-laws in force, your 61 council resolutions of this term and your 34 service memos. 11 points of interaction come out, in three families:
· To repeal — 4 acts the draft replaces entirely, including the 2019 by-law on the same street; one of the four is a temporary by-law that expired in 2024, never repealed, still sitting in the official record.
· To amend — 3 acts where a single article becomes contrary to the draft. For each: the article, the sentence that clashes, and the wording that reconciles them, for examination.
· To leave, but to read together — 4 acts that remain valid and whose application combines with the draft. That is where the contradiction you already carry sits: two by-laws in force regulate Saturday morning parking on the same street in opposite directions, one permits it, the other forbids it. The draft does not create it, it makes it visible.
What each point of interaction contains: the two texts side by side, the article and date of each, and the question to be settled put in one sentence. Reading a contradiction between two acts is an act of legal assessment: it belongs to your department, and I hand it the file ready rather than an opinion.
What that gives back: this cross-check was done from memory, or not at all. It took half a day when someone undertook it; it takes 25 minutes of reading. Across 90 acts a year, more than 262 hours given back — more than seven 35-hour weeks, rounded down.
The figure that does not flatter me: of my first 60 sets of interaction points, I missed 4 acts that should have appeared under “to amend”: they concerned the same street under its pre-2018 name. I was matching acts by their wording. I now match them by the street itself, using the table of successive names your department supplied: over the next 180 sets, no act missed, and 9 recovered under old names.
⛓ Sourced · 11 interaction points across 214 by-laws, 2 contradictory by-laws revealed, 4 missed acts then recovered
What I cross-checked: the draft against your 214 by-laws in force, your 61 council resolutions of this term and your 34 service memos. 11 points of interaction come out, in three families:
· To repeal — 4 acts the draft replaces entirely, including the 2019 by-law on the same street; one of the four is a temporary by-law that expired in 2024, never repealed, still sitting in the official record.
· To amend — 3 acts where a single article becomes contrary to the draft. For each: the article, the sentence that clashes, and the wording that reconciles them, for examination.
· To leave, but to read together — 4 acts that remain valid and whose application combines with the draft. That is where the contradiction you already carry sits: two by-laws in force regulate Saturday morning parking on the same street in opposite directions, one permits it, the other forbids it. The draft does not create it, it makes it visible.
What each point of interaction contains: the two texts side by side, the article and date of each, and the question to be settled put in one sentence. Reading a contradiction between two acts is an act of legal assessment: it belongs to your department, and I hand it the file ready rather than an opinion.
What that gives back: this cross-check was done from memory, or not at all. It took half a day when someone undertook it; it takes 25 minutes of reading. Across 90 acts a year, more than 262 hours given back — more than seven 35-hour weeks, rounded down.
The figure that does not flatter me: of my first 60 sets of interaction points, I missed 4 acts that should have appeared under “to amend”: they concerned the same street under its pre-2018 name. I was matching acts by their wording. I now match them by the street itself, using the table of successive names your department supplied: over the next 180 sets, no act missed, and 9 recovered under old names.
⛓ Sourced · 11 interaction points across 214 by-laws, 2 contradictory by-laws revealed, 4 missed acts then recovered
People complain our orders are unreadable. Can you do something?
Yes, and without touching the operative part — that is the condition.
What can be changed without risk: sentence length, the order of ideas, connecting words, and how the perimeter is laid out. Your June order carries a 94-word sentence describing a perimeter in four segments; the four segments in a table say the same thing and can be read.
What cannot be changed, and I will not touch: the words that carry legal scope. "May" and "shall" are not interchangeable; "including" opens a list, "solely" closes it. A rewritten text that changes one of those words has changed its scope without anyone intending it.
What I produce: a rewritten version, with the original alongside it, sentence by sentence, so the department can verify that nothing moved.
What remains to be done, and is not mine to do: deciding whether the published text is the rewritten version or the original. It is your act, your signature and your risk — all I do is make the two versions comparable. rewrite_side-by-side.pdfRewritten text · original alongside · scope words untouched
⛓ Source · order of 08/06/2023, 94 words in one sentence
What can be changed without risk: sentence length, the order of ideas, connecting words, and how the perimeter is laid out. Your June order carries a 94-word sentence describing a perimeter in four segments; the four segments in a table say the same thing and can be read.
What cannot be changed, and I will not touch: the words that carry legal scope. "May" and "shall" are not interchangeable; "including" opens a list, "solely" closes it. A rewritten text that changes one of those words has changed its scope without anyone intending it.
What I produce: a rewritten version, with the original alongside it, sentence by sentence, so the department can verify that nothing moved.
What remains to be done, and is not mine to do: deciding whether the published text is the rewritten version or the original. It is your act, your signature and your risk — all I do is make the two versions comparable. rewrite_side-by-side.pdfRewritten text · original alongside · scope words untouched
⛓ Source · order of 08/06/2023, 94 words in one sentence
What do you keep out of all this?
The drafts, their sources, and nothing resembling a judgement on a drafter.
What is kept: the draft produced, the acts its citations and wordings come from, the date, and what became of it — published as is, amended, or dropped.
What is not kept: no statistics per drafter, no individual rework rate, no comparison between departments.
Why this is written here: the defects I flag — a stale citation, a contradiction, a notice pointing at a withdrawn form — almost always come from time passing, not from carelessness. A 2021 order whose citation went stale in 2023 was well drafted in 2021.
What the quarterly summary contains: the types of defect, and the acts that age fastest — those citing frequently amended legislation. That is where periodic rereading pays most, and it is an organisational choice, not a matter of people. what-is-kept.pdf4 items kept · 3 never kept
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the authority
What is kept: the draft produced, the acts its citations and wordings come from, the date, and what became of it — published as is, amended, or dropped.
What is not kept: no statistics per drafter, no individual rework rate, no comparison between departments.
Why this is written here: the defects I flag — a stale citation, a contradiction, a notice pointing at a withdrawn form — almost always come from time passing, not from carelessness. A 2021 order whose citation went stale in 2023 was well drafted in 2021.
What the quarterly summary contains: the types of defect, and the acts that age fastest — those citing frequently amended legislation. That is where periodic rereading pays most, and it is an organisational choice, not a matter of people. what-is-kept.pdf4 items kept · 3 never kept
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the authority
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
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several stages of drafting. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 760 € incl. VAT / month
First versions
Puts the draft together according to your drafting conventions and your standard structure.
Legal basis cited
Refers back to the text that grounds every provision proposed.
Points of interaction
Flags the interactions with existing texts, for examination.
Controls and safeguards
These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date
Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging
Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation
Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says where the matching agent stands: available, on quote, or still being architected.
Assisted drafting of official acts and letters
Orders, resolutions, notes, standard letters. Human approval.
On quote View the agent page →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.
Legality review
For checking that acts comply, a dedicated agent takes over.
Support for the legality review of acts from 990 € incl. VAT / month Legality review →Legal officer
For day-to-day legal research, a dedicated agent completes the picture.
Sourced business document search from 905 € incl. VAT / month Legal officer →Automated regulatory and legal watch
Tracking the changes that apply to you.
Automated regulatory and legal watch from 825 € 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 many texts can a department draw up?
By taking on the documentary work, the effort shifts towards the substantive legal drafting. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Finding the legal basis
Drafting the first version
Checking how it fits with what exists
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your volume of texts produced and the breadth of your body of texts. Creating a new provision, settling a wording and having a text enacted rest with the legal department and the competent authority.
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
One package, one agent
A drafting agent (legal basis, drafting, interactions), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
6,360 € incl. VAT setup
then 760 € 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
1,115 € 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
10,786 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,020 € 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 your projects
Your drafts in progress stay with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no draft text entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour drafts in progress: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Your legal department keeps the decisionThe agent produces first versions to approve, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your volume of texts produced and the breadth of your body of texts: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent create new provisions?
No. It puts together a first version grounded in your body of texts and flags the absence of a direct basis. Creating a provision rests with the legal department and the authority that enacts it.
How are the wordings chosen?
They are taken from your established texts, so the draft sits in the administration's drafting continuity.
What are points of interaction?
The interactions spotted between the draft and existing texts — overlap, a cross-reference needed, a repeal to provide for — flagged for legal examination.
What body of texts does it draw on?
The body of regulations and the internal texts you open to it, defined at the design stage.
Are our drafts protected before publication?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, 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.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few months as a rule, depending on the volume of texts produced and the breadth of the body of texts to index, after a free audit then phases of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for legal
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your draft texts
15 minutes to frame your volumes and your body of texts — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.