We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Public sector offer — Legality reviewLegality review: every act examined, every point documented
The legality review rests on the systematic examination of the acts submitted against the applicable texts. Your agent examines each act according to your review framework, raises the points to check with the provision concerned and keeps the record of the examination. Hosted in France: the acts and your observations stay within your administration. The legal classification and what follows rest with the department.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Legality review · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Examine the acts received this week.
Every act examined against your framework: nature of the act, competence of the body, essential formalities, documents required.
For every point raised, the provision concerned and the passage of the act are cited.
Three acts have a point to check; the others have none against the framework.
🔗 Sourced · the acts submitted and the review framework
For every point raised, the provision concerned and the passage of the act are cited.
Three acts have a point to check; the others have none against the framework.
🔗 Sourced · the acts submitted and the review framework
Does that point amount to an illegality?
I provide the applicable provision, the passage of the act and the comparable precedents from your practice.
Classifying an illegality and deciding on an observation or a challenge are legal acts: they rest with the department and the competent authority.
✎ Support · material gathered, legal classification
Classifying an illegality and deciding on an observation or a challenge are legal acts: they rest with the department and the competent authority.
✎ Support · material gathered, legal classification
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Acts hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Acts and observations protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
Your legality review department decidesThe 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
A Blue Lemon Agent legality review agent examines every act submitted against your framework — nature, competence, formalities, documents — and cites for every point raised the provision concerned and the passage of the act. The legal classification and what follows rest with the 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 with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
3
review uses ready to deploy
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your volume of acts submitted and the breadth of your framework is confirmed by a pilot.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
One package, one agent
An agent supporting the legality review (examination, provisions cited, precedents), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
5,355 € incl. VAT setup
then 510 € 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
810 € 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
7,881 € incl. VAT setup
then 640 € 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.
- 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 agent actually do?
One agent, several angles of review, with links to neighbouring agents. The agent carries out by itself the review you authorise it to do; the legal classification and the action to take are a matter for the department.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 510 € incl. VAT / month
Examination against your framework
Checks the nature of the act, competence, formalities and documents required.
Documented points
Cites the applicable provision and the passage of the act concerned.
Precedents from your practice
Finds the comparable cases the department has already handled.
Controls and safeguards
These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date
Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging
Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation
Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Public procurement
For analysing procurement procedures, a dedicated agent takes over.
Public procurement support from 520 € incl. VAT / month Public procurement →Legal officer
For day-to-day legal research, a dedicated agent completes the picture.
Sourced business document search from 470 € incl. VAT / month Legal officer →Legal agent (contract / case law search)
Extended RAG, sourced answers.
Legal agent (contract / case law search) from 485 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Legal document agent (litigation)
RAG, deadlines.
Legal document agent (litigation) from 390 € 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.
Legality review · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Four flags this morning on your transmissions.
· A resolution was transmitted without its financial annex, although the report mentions it twice. It will be asked for.
· Three acts transmitted last week repeat a formal defect the prefecture pointed out to you in February on a comparable act.
· An act made on 14/07 was never transmitted and has been in force since. The prefect's challenge period has therefore not started to run.
· Two resolutions transmitted on the same day contradict each other on the amount of one project. Both were voted in the same sitting. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 untransmitted act
⛓ Source · transmissions register, acknowledgements of receipt, prefectural observations received
· A resolution was transmitted without its financial annex, although the report mentions it twice. It will be asked for.
· Three acts transmitted last week repeat a formal defect the prefecture pointed out to you in February on a comparable act.
· An act made on 14/07 was never transmitted and has been in force since. The prefect's challenge period has therefore not started to run.
· Two resolutions transmitted on the same day contradict each other on the amount of one project. Both were voted in the same sitting. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 untransmitted act
⛓ Source · transmissions register, acknowledgements of receipt, prefectural observations received
The untransmitted act — what does that change?
It produces its effects, but the review clock has not started.
What I record: the act was made, it is signed, it has been applied since 14/07. No trace of transmission in your register, and no acknowledgement of receipt.
What that means concretely: the State representative refers to the administrative court the acts it considers contrary to legality within two months of their transmission (article L2131-6 of the general code of local authorities). No transmission, no starting point — the act stays open longer than the authority imagines.
What I do not say: that the act is unlawful, or that it would be referred. The legality review is not mine to carry out, and it is not yours either — I record an absent transmission, nothing more.
What I prepared: the act, its covering schedule, and the list of documents your comparable transmissions include — so this one goes out complete first time. act-14-07_not-transmitted.pdf1 act · schedule ready · documents listed
⛓ Source · act of 14/07, transmissions register, art. L2131-6 CGCT
What I record: the act was made, it is signed, it has been applied since 14/07. No trace of transmission in your register, and no acknowledgement of receipt.
What that means concretely: the State representative refers to the administrative court the acts it considers contrary to legality within two months of their transmission (article L2131-6 of the general code of local authorities). No transmission, no starting point — the act stays open longer than the authority imagines.
What I do not say: that the act is unlawful, or that it would be referred. The legality review is not mine to carry out, and it is not yours either — I record an absent transmission, nothing more.
What I prepared: the act, its covering schedule, and the list of documents your comparable transmissions include — so this one goes out complete first time. act-14-07_not-transmitted.pdf1 act · schedule ready · documents listed
⛓ Source · act of 14/07, transmissions register, art. L2131-6 CGCT
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: your acts, your transmissions register, the acknowledgements of receipt, and the observations the prefecture has sent you — the most useful of the four sources, and the least used.
Routing follows what is at stake: an untransmitted act goes to the general secretariat, same day; an incomplete transmission to the drafting department, before the prefecture asks for the missing piece; a formal defect already pointed out to the drafter and legal services; two contradictory acts to both drafters and the clerk of the sitting.
With a chase: 24 h on an untransmitted act, 7 days on the rest. Then a quarterly summary: by type of observation received, never by drafter.
What this morning already gives back to the service: an act taken on 14 July, being applied, never transmitted — so an act on which the prefect's period to challenge has not begun to run, a resolution sent without its financial annex, which was about to be asked for, and 3 acts reproducing a formal defect the prefecture already pointed out in February. From tomorrow: the back-and-forth with the prefecture removed at source — that many officer-hours given back to the general secretariat and the drafting department — acts secured within their deadlines, and the same standard for every transmission, whoever drafted it: the summary is by type of observation, never by person. The access is yours: acts, register, acknowledgements of receipt and prefecture observations opened by role, logged, withdrawn with a word; they stay inside your administration, under French law. Legal characterisation belongs to the representative of the State, and what follows to the department: I never call an act unlawful — I bring the act, the covering slip, the provision concerned and your own precedents, so the department settles it in minutes instead of reopening the file. Transmitting, on the other hand, is not a prohibition: it is a mandate — written, limited to the types of act you name, dated, withdrawn with a word; open it to me and the act goes out complete the same day. And the net tightens with every observation received: any untransmitted act comes up the same day, any incomplete transmission before the prefecture asks for the missing piece, every observation folded back into the checklist once a quarter — a defect pointed out once does not recur three times. The next step is ready: the covering slip for the act of 14 July, and the list of documents your comparable transmissions include.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Routing follows what is at stake: an untransmitted act goes to the general secretariat, same day; an incomplete transmission to the drafting department, before the prefecture asks for the missing piece; a formal defect already pointed out to the drafter and legal services; two contradictory acts to both drafters and the clerk of the sitting.
With a chase: 24 h on an untransmitted act, 7 days on the rest. Then a quarterly summary: by type of observation received, never by drafter.
What this morning already gives back to the service: an act taken on 14 July, being applied, never transmitted — so an act on which the prefect's period to challenge has not begun to run, a resolution sent without its financial annex, which was about to be asked for, and 3 acts reproducing a formal defect the prefecture already pointed out in February. From tomorrow: the back-and-forth with the prefecture removed at source — that many officer-hours given back to the general secretariat and the drafting department — acts secured within their deadlines, and the same standard for every transmission, whoever drafted it: the summary is by type of observation, never by person. The access is yours: acts, register, acknowledgements of receipt and prefecture observations opened by role, logged, withdrawn with a word; they stay inside your administration, under French law. Legal characterisation belongs to the representative of the State, and what follows to the department: I never call an act unlawful — I bring the act, the covering slip, the provision concerned and your own precedents, so the department settles it in minutes instead of reopening the file. Transmitting, on the other hand, is not a prohibition: it is a mandate — written, limited to the types of act you name, dated, withdrawn with a word; open it to me and the act goes out complete the same day. And the net tightens with every observation received: any untransmitted act comes up the same day, any incomplete transmission before the prefecture asks for the missing piece, every observation folded back into the checklist once a quarter — a defect pointed out once does not recur three times. The next step is ready: the covering slip for the act of 14 July, and the list of documents your comparable transmissions include.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Fictional simulation — not a client result
How do you know which documents are missing?
I do not know it from a rule: I take it from your own transmissions.
What I did: I recorded, across your 38 budget resolutions transmitted since 2024, the documents that accompanied them. Seven documents recur in 36 filings or more. Those are your practices, established by you, and they are more reliable than a theoretical list.
On today's resolution: six of the seven are there. The financial annex is missing, and the report refers to it twice — that reference is what makes me look for it, not a tick box.
What I do assert, and what is settled elsewhere: I assert that it accompanies 37 of your 38 comparable filings and that the report points to it twice — a fact, drawn from your own transmissions, checkable line by line. Whether it is legally required belongs to the review, which is the prefect's; the filing itself is signed at your end. If it is not required, the filing will go without it and that will be fine. Either way it is already attached to the file, ready to go or to remove in one click.
What that spares you: the round trip. A document asked for by the prefecture means two to three weeks, during which the act is applied without the review having been able to start. 7-documents_from-your-filings.pdf38 filings analysed · 7 recurring documents
⛓ Source · 38 resolutions transmitted since 2024, report attached to today's act
What I did: I recorded, across your 38 budget resolutions transmitted since 2024, the documents that accompanied them. Seven documents recur in 36 filings or more. Those are your practices, established by you, and they are more reliable than a theoretical list.
On today's resolution: six of the seven are there. The financial annex is missing, and the report refers to it twice — that reference is what makes me look for it, not a tick box.
What I do assert, and what is settled elsewhere: I assert that it accompanies 37 of your 38 comparable filings and that the report points to it twice — a fact, drawn from your own transmissions, checkable line by line. Whether it is legally required belongs to the review, which is the prefect's; the filing itself is signed at your end. If it is not required, the filing will go without it and that will be fine. Either way it is already attached to the file, ready to go or to remove in one click.
What that spares you: the round trip. A document asked for by the prefecture means two to three weeks, during which the act is applied without the review having been able to start. 7-documents_from-your-filings.pdf38 filings analysed · 7 recurring documents
⛓ Source · 38 resolutions transmitted since 2024, report attached to today's act
And the formal defects already pointed out by the prefecture?
That is the most profitable seam, and it lies dormant in your correspondence.
What I did: I reread the 23 observations the prefecture has sent you since 2023, and looked at whether the defect pointed out recurs in later acts.
What that gives: 11 of the 23 concern points now held — corrected and never seen again. 7 concern points that still recur from time to time. 5 concern isolated cases that never happened again.
Last week's three acts repeat one of the seven: a display wording the prefecture asked you to make more precise in February.
What I propose: not an alert on every act — but the exact wording you used in the acts following that observation and which has never drawn a further remark. It is in your own acts, it worked, it simply has to be reused.
What I put in front of you, and it is already the answer: your own drafting — the wording used in the acts following February's observation, which has never drawn a further remark. It is ready to reuse as it stands on last week's three acts: three substitutions, and the observation does not come back. The drafting of the act stays yours and is signed — you wrote it, and that is precisely why it holds. 23-observations_what-recurs.pdf11 held · 7 recurring · 5 isolated
⛓ Source · 23 prefectural observations since 2023, acts following each
What I did: I reread the 23 observations the prefecture has sent you since 2023, and looked at whether the defect pointed out recurs in later acts.
What that gives: 11 of the 23 concern points now held — corrected and never seen again. 7 concern points that still recur from time to time. 5 concern isolated cases that never happened again.
Last week's three acts repeat one of the seven: a display wording the prefecture asked you to make more precise in February.
What I propose: not an alert on every act — but the exact wording you used in the acts following that observation and which has never drawn a further remark. It is in your own acts, it worked, it simply has to be reused.
What I put in front of you, and it is already the answer: your own drafting — the wording used in the acts following February's observation, which has never drawn a further remark. It is ready to reuse as it stands on last week's three acts: three substitutions, and the observation does not come back. The drafting of the act stays yours and is signed — you wrote it, and that is precisely why it holds. 23-observations_what-recurs.pdf11 held · 7 recurring · 5 isolated
⛓ Source · 23 prefectural observations since 2023, acts following each
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The two contradictory resolutions — which is right?
I do not know, and the minutes do not say either.
What I record: resolution no. 7 sets the project amount at €1,480,000; no. 12, voted forty minutes later in the same sitting, enters it at €1,380,000.
What I looked for: an amendment, a re-vote, a note in the minutes explaining the gap. Nothing between the two. The minutes record both votes and do not connect them.
The two possible readings: either no. 12 corrects no. 7 without saying so — and it should say so; or one of the two figures is a transcription error, and both were voted in good faith.
What it produces if both go out: two contradictory acts transmitted on the same day, on the same project. That is the kind of thing that draws an observation, and rightly.
What I propose: both texts side by side, the minutes extract for each, and the name of the clerk of the sitting. The correction is decided before sending, not after. 2-resolutions_one-sitting.pdf2 amounts · 40 minutes · no link in the minutes
⛓ Source · resolutions no. 7 and no. 12 of 30/07, minutes of the sitting
What I record: resolution no. 7 sets the project amount at €1,480,000; no. 12, voted forty minutes later in the same sitting, enters it at €1,380,000.
What I looked for: an amendment, a re-vote, a note in the minutes explaining the gap. Nothing between the two. The minutes record both votes and do not connect them.
The two possible readings: either no. 12 corrects no. 7 without saying so — and it should say so; or one of the two figures is a transcription error, and both were voted in good faith.
What it produces if both go out: two contradictory acts transmitted on the same day, on the same project. That is the kind of thing that draws an observation, and rightly.
What I propose: both texts side by side, the minutes extract for each, and the name of the clerk of the sitting. The correction is decided before sending, not after. 2-resolutions_one-sitting.pdf2 amounts · 40 minutes · no link in the minutes
⛓ Source · resolutions no. 7 and no. 12 of 30/07, minutes of the sitting
Does that happen often?
Four times in two years, and all four share one origin.
What I looked at: every sitting since 2024, searching for two resolutions from one sitting on the same subject with different figures. 4 cases across 61 sittings.
What they have in common: all four concern a project appearing both in a resolution of principle and in a budget decision. The first sets the programme, the second enters the appropriations — and the second's figure was updated without the first being updated.
So it is not inattention: it is the point where two documents prepared by two departments meet in the same sitting.
What I propose: flagging the coexistence while the agenda is being prepared, not at transmission. At that point only one of the two reports needs amending; after the vote, a fresh resolution is needed.
The gain: four sittings in two years is little — but each of those four cost a corrective resolution. 4-cases_in-2-years.pdf61 sittings · 4 cases · 1 shared origin
✎ Proposal · flagged while the agenda is being prepared
What I looked at: every sitting since 2024, searching for two resolutions from one sitting on the same subject with different figures. 4 cases across 61 sittings.
What they have in common: all four concern a project appearing both in a resolution of principle and in a budget decision. The first sets the programme, the second enters the appropriations — and the second's figure was updated without the first being updated.
So it is not inattention: it is the point where two documents prepared by two departments meet in the same sitting.
What I propose: flagging the coexistence while the agenda is being prepared, not at transmission. At that point only one of the two reports needs amending; after the vote, a fresh resolution is needed.
The gain: four sittings in two years is little — but each of those four cost a corrective resolution. 4-cases_in-2-years.pdf61 sittings · 4 cases · 1 shared origin
✎ Proposal · flagged while the agenda is being prepared
Fictional simulation — not a client result
One act from yesterday's sitting resembles nothing you have ever sent, and its transmission is not waiting.
What it is: a joint purchasing group constitutive agreement with two neighbouring councils. Your register holds no equivalent since 2024: the seven documents I know to expect come from your 38 budget resolutions, and they say nothing about this one.
This kind of case had not yet been taken into account: I draw the list of documents from your own practice, and there is no practice for a category never sent. So I have settled nothing on my own — and the act is ready to go within two hours.
Three ways forward. Send the act alone and wait for a possible request: the shortest path, and across your 6 incomplete transmissions of 2024, a document asked for again cost 11 days between the first send and the acknowledgement of the complete one. Enclose every document quoted in the body of the act and in its report: the transmission is complete as against the act itself, at the cost of a heavier envelope and perhaps two useless documents. Ask the legal department for the list before sending: the list is safe, and the act waits for their answer — 3 days on average here.
I recommend the second. Of the 23 observations the prefecture has sent you since 2023, not one has ever concerned a document too many; six concerned a missing one. The risk is not symmetrical, and that is what decides it.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: the documents quoted in the body of the act always go, and the legal department is consulted in parallel without holding up the send.
Shall I remember it for the next acts with no established practice? Of your 214 acts sent since 2024, 31 belong to a category for which you do not have five comparable transmissions. If you approve the rule, I will prepare the next ones that way, and I will give you the count at each quarterly summary.
⛓ Source · sitting of 10/08, register of transmissions since 2024 (214 acts), 23 prefectural observations since 2023
What it is: a joint purchasing group constitutive agreement with two neighbouring councils. Your register holds no equivalent since 2024: the seven documents I know to expect come from your 38 budget resolutions, and they say nothing about this one.
This kind of case had not yet been taken into account: I draw the list of documents from your own practice, and there is no practice for a category never sent. So I have settled nothing on my own — and the act is ready to go within two hours.
Three ways forward. Send the act alone and wait for a possible request: the shortest path, and across your 6 incomplete transmissions of 2024, a document asked for again cost 11 days between the first send and the acknowledgement of the complete one. Enclose every document quoted in the body of the act and in its report: the transmission is complete as against the act itself, at the cost of a heavier envelope and perhaps two useless documents. Ask the legal department for the list before sending: the list is safe, and the act waits for their answer — 3 days on average here.
I recommend the second. Of the 23 observations the prefecture has sent you since 2023, not one has ever concerned a document too many; six concerned a missing one. The risk is not symmetrical, and that is what decides it.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: the documents quoted in the body of the act always go, and the legal department is consulted in parallel without holding up the send.
Shall I remember it for the next acts with no established practice? Of your 214 acts sent since 2024, 31 belong to a category for which you do not have five comparable transmissions. If you approve the rule, I will prepare the next ones that way, and I will give you the count at each quarterly summary.
⛓ Source · sitting of 10/08, register of transmissions since 2024 (214 acts), 23 prefectural observations since 2023
The second. But the schedule must say where each document comes from — “quoted in article 4 of the agreement”, for instance. Otherwise we will be told we sent things at random. And yes, keep it.
Written exactly as you just said it, and it carries your correction.
The rule, in one sentence: an act from a category with no established practice goes out with every document quoted in its body and in its report, and the schedule states for each one the exact place that calls for it.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a schedule that lists is a list; a schedule that points to the article calling for the document is the demonstration that the transmission was built on the act, and not on a habit. That is what can be read back in two years, when nobody remembers the sitting.
What it changes this morning: the agreement goes out with its 5 quoted documents — matching resolutions from the two neighbouring councils, financial annex, presentation report, allocation table — each tied to the article that calls for it, and the schedule fits on one page.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your transmission procedure under its own name, with its date, the general secretariat that approved it and the act that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and these acts go back to being handled case by case.
✎ Rule approved · transmission procedure, entry “act with no established practice”, approved on 11/08 by the general secretariat
The rule, in one sentence: an act from a category with no established practice goes out with every document quoted in its body and in its report, and the schedule states for each one the exact place that calls for it.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a schedule that lists is a list; a schedule that points to the article calling for the document is the demonstration that the transmission was built on the act, and not on a habit. That is what can be read back in two years, when nobody remembers the sitting.
What it changes this morning: the agreement goes out with its 5 quoted documents — matching resolutions from the two neighbouring councils, financial annex, presentation report, allocation table — each tied to the article that calls for it, and the schedule fits on one page.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your transmission procedure under its own name, with its date, the general secretariat that approved it and the act that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and these acts go back to being handled case by case.
✎ Rule approved · transmission procedure, entry “act with no established practice”, approved on 11/08 by the general secretariat
The 31 acts with no established practice — did they cause trouble?
I have read them back, and they stand clearly apart from the others.
What I looked at: the 214 acts sent since 2024, the category of each, the documents enclosed, and the documents the prefecture asked for again.
What comes out of it: 12 of the 31 acts with no established practice led to a document being asked for again, against 6 across the other 183 — one act in 2.6 on one side, one in 30 on the other.
Where the opportunity sits, and it is not in the category: the 18 documents asked for again were all quoted in the body of the act or in its report. The expected list existed every single time: it was written inside the act, and nobody read it as a list.
What I propose, and it is one line to change in your procedure: that the schedule be built from the body of the act for every act, not from the category alone. I collect the documents quoted, compare them with what is enclosed, and flag the gap before the send.
What it is worth: 18 documents asked for again since 2024, 11 days on average between the first send and the acknowledgement of the complete one: 198 days during which those acts had no complete transmission — therefore no certain starting point for the two-month period of article L2131-6.
The decision is yours: the transmission procedure belongs to the general secretariat, and I do not touch it before they have written it.
✎ Proposal · 214 acts since 2024, 31 with no established practice, 18 documents asked for again all quoted inside the act — the procedure belongs to the general secretariat
What I looked at: the 214 acts sent since 2024, the category of each, the documents enclosed, and the documents the prefecture asked for again.
What comes out of it: 12 of the 31 acts with no established practice led to a document being asked for again, against 6 across the other 183 — one act in 2.6 on one side, one in 30 on the other.
Where the opportunity sits, and it is not in the category: the 18 documents asked for again were all quoted in the body of the act or in its report. The expected list existed every single time: it was written inside the act, and nobody read it as a list.
What I propose, and it is one line to change in your procedure: that the schedule be built from the body of the act for every act, not from the category alone. I collect the documents quoted, compare them with what is enclosed, and flag the gap before the send.
What it is worth: 18 documents asked for again since 2024, 11 days on average between the first send and the acknowledgement of the complete one: 198 days during which those acts had no complete transmission — therefore no certain starting point for the two-month period of article L2131-6.
The decision is yours: the transmission procedure belongs to the general secretariat, and I do not touch it before they have written it.
✎ Proposal · 214 acts since 2024, 31 with no established practice, 18 documents asked for again all quoted inside the act — the procedure belongs to the general secretariat
Fictional simulation — not a client result
How do we track the deadlines after transmission?
On the acknowledgement date, not the sending date.
What I track: for every transmitted act, the date of the acknowledgement of receipt. It is from transmission that the two-month period runs in which the State representative may refer an act to the administrative court (art. L2131-6 CGCT).
What that gives you: at any moment, the list of acts still inside the window and of those that have left it. Today: 31 acts inside the window, 4 of which leave it this week.
What this tracking does not do: it tells you nothing about what the prefect will do. An act leaving the window without observation is not a validated act — the legality review is not an approval, and a third party can always challenge an act before the court.
What it does make possible: knowing when a project can be started with reasonable safety, and when it is better to wait a week.
And a point few authorities use: at your request, the State representative informs you of an intention not to refer a transmitted act. The same article provides for it, and it has to be asked for. 31-acts_inside-the-window.pdf31 acts · 4 leave this week
⛓ Source · acknowledgements of receipt, art. L2131-6 CGCT, 31 acts in progress
What I track: for every transmitted act, the date of the acknowledgement of receipt. It is from transmission that the two-month period runs in which the State representative may refer an act to the administrative court (art. L2131-6 CGCT).
What that gives you: at any moment, the list of acts still inside the window and of those that have left it. Today: 31 acts inside the window, 4 of which leave it this week.
What this tracking does not do: it tells you nothing about what the prefect will do. An act leaving the window without observation is not a validated act — the legality review is not an approval, and a third party can always challenge an act before the court.
What it does make possible: knowing when a project can be started with reasonable safety, and when it is better to wait a week.
And a point few authorities use: at your request, the State representative informs you of an intention not to refer a transmitted act. The same article provides for it, and it has to be asked for. 31-acts_inside-the-window.pdf31 acts · 4 leave this week
⛓ Source · acknowledgements of receipt, art. L2131-6 CGCT, 31 acts in progress
What do you keep out of all this?
The transmissions and what accompanies them, and nothing that judges a drafter.
What is kept: the act transmitted, the documents attached and those that were missing, the acknowledgement date, the observations received, and what was done about them.
What is not kept: no statistics per drafter, no observation rate per department, no appraisal of an act's legal quality.
Why the third line matters: a tool that graded your acts would produce a legality appraisal that has no value and would nonetheless be read as one. An act marked "compliant" by software and then referred puts the authority in a worse position than if nothing had been marked.
What the quarterly summary contains: the types of observation received, those that no longer recur, and those that still do. The eleven that no longer recur are worth reading: they show what the authority genuinely corrected, and that is rarely written down anywhere. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the authority
What is kept: the act transmitted, the documents attached and those that were missing, the acknowledgement date, the observations received, and what was done about them.
What is not kept: no statistics per drafter, no observation rate per department, no appraisal of an act's legal quality.
Why the third line matters: a tool that graded your acts would produce a legality appraisal that has no value and would nonetheless be read as one. An act marked "compliant" by software and then referred puts the authority in a worse position than if nothing had been marked.
What the quarterly summary contains: the types of observation received, those that no longer recur, and those that still do. The eleven that no longer recur are worth reading: they show what the authority genuinely corrected, and that is rarely written down anywhere. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the authority
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
What does an AI agent bring to your legality review?
Examining every act rather than a sample changes the reach of the review carried out.
! The issue
The legality review calls for a consistent examination of every act and a record of what was checked. Those requirements are methodical and lend themselves to systematic execution across all the acts. The legal classification, on the other hand, belongs to the department — the agent brings it the material and the precedents.
✓ Our answer
The legality review department examines every act against a framework applied consistently, with the provision and the passage cited for each point raised. Classifying an illegality, issuing an observation or bringing a challenge are legal acts that rest with the department and the competent authority. Data hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With the 100% Sovereign package, the acts and your observations do not leave your perimeter.
The decisive point
Local authorities' acts and your observations: sovereignty & compliance
The acts submitted and your observations in preparation call for strict confidentiality and traceability. Here is how they are assured.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to your organisation: no act and no observation leaves the network.
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
For local authorities' acts and your observations, 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 review framework.
Provision and passage always cited
Every point raised cites the applicable provision and the passage of the act; encryption, role-based access and logging that can be used in litigation.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no illegality is classified, no observation is issued and no challenge is brought; 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 acts subject to proceedings or litigation in progress, 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.
The gain
How many acts can a department examine?
By taking on the systematic examination, the effort shifts towards the legal classification. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Examining an act against the framework
Finding the applicable provision
Finding the precedents
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your volume of acts submitted and the breadth of your framework. Classifying an illegality, issuing an observation or bringing a challenge are legal acts: they rest with the department and the competent authority.
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 your review
With 100% Sovereign, the acts and your observations stay with youData 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 act and no observation entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawLocal authorities' acts and your observations: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Your legality review department keeps the decisionThe agent produces acts that are examined and documented, which can be checked and altered; the decisions remain yours.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your volume of acts submitted and the breadth of your framework: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent classify an illegality?
No. It raises the points to check, citing the provision and the passage of the act. Classifying an illegality is a legal act that rests with the department.
How is the control framework defined?
With you, from your practice and the applicable texts. The agent applies it consistently across every act.
What does it do with an act where no point is raised?
It states that no point was raised against the framework, with the record of the checks carried out.
Can the record be used in litigation?
Yes: the provision cited, the passage of the act and the checks carried out are kept, which makes it possible to reconstruct the examination afterwards.
Are the acts protected?
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 acts submitted and the breadth of your framework, after a meeting with our sales team then phases of design, integration and testing.
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your legality review
30 minutes to frame your volumes and your framework — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.