We build Agents. You build the Future.

● Public sector offer — Documentation & analysis

Document summaries: the essentials, with the pages cited

A three-hundred-page report, a study, a case-law file: reading it in full is not always possible in the time available. Your agent produces a structured summary citing the page of every element kept, and flags what the document does not deal with. Hosted in France: your working documents stay within your administration. The agent summarises, your officers judge and decide.

Discuss your project → See the prices

Updated on 05/11/2026

Deployed in a few weeks

Document summaries · hosted in France

Fictional simulation — not a client result

Summarise this three-hundred-page report.

Structured summary: subject, findings, recommendations made, useful annexes.
Every element kept refers back to its page in the document.
Two questions are not dealt with by the report: they are flagged as such.
🔗 Sourced · pages of the document, cited one by one

What conclusions should we draw for our file?

I can match the report's findings against the elements of your file and show where they overlap.
Drawing a conclusion for your administration rests with your officers: the document informs, it does not decide.
✎ Support · matching provided, human judgement

Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option

Documents hosted in France

Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option

Working documents protected

GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight

TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you

Your officers decideThe 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 summary agent handles reports, studies, files and case law and produces a structured summary in which every element refers back to its page. It flags what the document does not deal with rather than filling the gap. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With the 100% Sovereign package, your working documents stay with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)

document uses ready to deploy

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 the volume of documents handled each month 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

A document summary agent (structure, pages cited, gaps), installed and operated for you.

Agility

Setup + controlled subscription

2,020 € ^{incl. VAT} setup

then 290 € ^{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

Order →

The simplest Serenity

All inclusive, no setup fee

405 € ^{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

Order →

100% Sovereign

On site, you own it

4,121 € ^{incl. VAT} setup

then 410 € ^{incl. VAT}/month · + hardware from 1,269 € (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)

Order →

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.

See the full price list →

Estimate my gains in 1 minute →

Use cases

What does the agent actually do?

One agent, several kinds of document, with a link to a neighbouring agent. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you.

Included in your agent The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.

From 290 € incl. VAT / month

Structured summary

Draws out the subject, the findings, the recommendations and the useful annexes.

Pages cited

Refers back to the page of the document for every element kept.

Gaps flagged

States the questions the document does not deal with.

Controls and safeguards These 5 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 Inherited access rights, versions and freshness of the corpus Explicit handling of questions with no answer and of conflicting sources

What the agent must be connected to This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.

Measurement of accuracy, coverage and time saved

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.

Help with replies (parliamentary questions, letters from elected members, complaints)

Answering a named request from an elected official is a constrained exercise, distinct from summarising.

Help with replies (parliamentary questions, letters from elected members, complaints) from 310 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Does your need fall outside this?

In 30 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.

Build your agent

Demonstration

See the agent at work

4 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.

Document summaries · hosted in France

Fictional simulation — not a client result

Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· A 214-page report arrived on 12/07, and it is still unopened. It contains a deadline of 15 September, on page 187.
· Two versions of the same document are in circulation in two departments, with different figures in appendix 3.
· An internal note cites a report that does not exist in your library — under neither that title nor that date.
· Four reports due under an agreement have never been received. The oldest was due in January. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · documents concerned
⛓ Source · document library, opening logs, agreements and their dates

The 214-page report — what is on page 187?

A deadline that concerns you, in the last paragraph of appendix 4.
The passage, quoted: "The authorities concerned shall submit their action programme by 15 September 2026 at the latest." Page 187, appendix 4, final paragraph.
What I checked before flagging it: your authority does appear in the list of authorities concerned, on page 12 of the same report. This is not a general deadline: it is yours.
What I did not do: summarise the 214 pages for you. That is not what you need this morning — you need to know that a deadline 39 days away has gone unnoticed.
The full summary is ready if you want it, structured into subject, findings, recommendations and useful appendices, each element pointing back to its page.
Three points are flagged as absent from the report although one would expect them. report-214p_deadline-p187.pdf1 deadline · 39 days · passage quoted
⛓ Source · report of 12/07, p. 12 and p. 187

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

I read only what you have opened to me: the documents entering your library, what they contain, who has opened them, the versions that coexist, and the reports your agreements provide for.
Routing follows your organisation: the 15 September deadline to the chief executive and the department concerned, both together; the two diverging versions to the two departments that hold them, with appendix 3 of each side by side; the missing report to the author of the note that cites it; the four unreceived reports to the department that signed the agreement.
With a chase: 24 h on the deadline, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by document, never by officer.

What those four flags are worth this morning: a statutory deadline of 15 September found on page 187 of a 214-page report that arrived on 12/07 — 39 days to prepare the action programme instead of discovering it out of time; two diverging versions reconciled before one department writes on the other's figures; four reports due under an agreement claimed back, the oldest since January.
What that gives the service back: the reading hours go back to casework, the resident gets an answer within the stated time, and two departments handle the same file on the same figures — that is where equal treatment starts. The access stays yours: opened by role, logged, withdrawn on a word, and your working documents do not leave the administration — local inference with the 100% Sovereign package; with the Agility and Serenity packages, data hosted in France, AI model called at its publisher except with the Sovereign model option.
The next step is ready: the full summary of the 214 pages, structured into subject, findings, recommendations and useful appendices, each element pointing back to its page, and the three points flagged as absent from the report. Tell me who receives it and at what time: it goes out within minutes, and the conclusion the administration draws stays its own, informed by pages it can reopen.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds

Fictional simulation — not a client result

Summarise the report.

A summary in four parts, and every element points back to its page.
Subject — pp. 3 to 9. Findings — 14 retained, from p. 22 to p. 156. Recommendations made — 9, pp. 158 to 174. Useful appendices — 4 of 11, with why the other seven are not.
What I keep apart, and it matters: the recommendations the report makes and the findings that might call for others. Those are two different things, and a summary that mixes them makes the report say what it did not write.
Three absences flagged, because one would expect them in a document of this kind:
· No costing of the nine recommendations.
· No implementation timetable, apart from the deadline in appendix 4.
· No mention of authorities under 3,500 residents, although the scope announced on p. 5 includes them.
The third is the one that concerns you most. summary_214p-report.pdf14 findings · 9 recommendations · 3 absences
⛓ Source · 214-page report, original pagination

The three absences — are you sure they are not elsewhere?

I searched, and I will tell you where — because an absence asserted without a method is worth nothing.
For the costing: I searched the 214 pages for cost, budget, amount and euro. 17 occurrences, all in the budgetary context section, none attached to a recommendation.
For the timetable: I searched for dates and deadlines. One enforceable deadline only, the one in appendix 4; the other dates recall past events.
For small authorities: the scope announced on p. 5 covers "all authorities". The 3,500-resident threshold appears nowhere, and the 14 findings rest on a sample of 42 authorities the smallest of which has 8,200 residents, p. 21.
What I do not say: that the report is inapplicable to small authorities. I say it did not observe them — the consequence is yours. 3-absences_search-method.pdf3 absences · how each was searched for
✎ Support · search method given — the scope stays for the service to judge

Fictional simulation — not a client result

The two versions in circulation — how do they differ?

In one appendix, and the gap runs in a direction that matters.
What is identical: the body of the document, the first 40 pages, and nine appendices out of eleven.
What differs: appendix 3, the table of projected allocations. The March version shows €1.42m; the June version shows €1.28m.
Who holds what: finance works from the March one, technical services from the June one. Both are preparing a joint document for September.
What I record, and what gets settled: two dates and two figures — a later version is not always the operative one, a document can be corrected and the correction withdrawn. Which version is authoritative is named by the two departments, before September's joint document, and it takes one line to say.
What I have prepared: both appendices side by side, line by line, with the six lines that differ — the €140,000 gap sits on two lines only. appendix-3_two-versions.pdf6 diverging lines · 2 carry the gap
⛓ Source · March version, June version, library deposit logs

How do we avoid this in future?

By flagging the coexistence when it appears, not six months later.
What I can do: when a document enters the library and one with the same title or origin is already there, flag it to both holders, with each one's date and the pages that differ.
What I leave in place, and why: both versions, withdrawing none and marking none obsolete. An older version can still be the operative one, and a document library that tidies up on its users' behalf becomes a library nobody uses. What I add instead: the flag to both holders, dated, with the list of pages that differ — which is what it takes to settle it in two minutes.
What your library holds today: I searched for duplicates. 184 documents exist in at least two versions, 31 of them with differing content — the other 153 are strict duplicates, which is a housekeeping matter and not an information one.
Of the 31, seven differ on figures. Those are the ones I would surface first. library_184-duplicated-documents.pdf184 duplicates · 31 diverging · 7 on figures
✎ Proposal · flagged on entry — no version withdrawn

Fictional simulation — not a client result

The four unreceived reports — is that serious?

Three are delays; the fourth is something else.
· Annual report from a concession holder — due in January, never received. 7 months. The agreement provides for it at article 12.
· Interim report from a grant-funded association — due in April. 4 months.
· Inspection report from a body — due in June. 2 months.
· Activity report from a joint authority — received in April, but never filed in your library. It is sitting in a shared mailbox.
The fourth is not a delay: the document exists, it arrived, and it is not yet filed in your library. It is the easiest to fix and the most invisible.
What I have written, and what is left to sign: all three chasers are ready, each citing the article of the agreement that provides for the document, its due date and the delay in months. They are signed by the department that signed the agreement — a chaser on a contractual obligation comes from it, and that is what makes it enforceable. Three signatures, and seven months of delay stop being silent.

And one improvement this fourth report brings to light, because it is not alone: I have reconciled the shared mailbox against your document library. 62 received documents are sitting there without having been filed, of which 9 are due under an agreement — so today they show as not received. The arithmetic: a chaser sent on a document that has already arrived costs the exchange that follows — the partner replies that they sent it, the sending has to be found, checked and closed out: 35 minutes per case, 5 hours 15 minutes across the 9 — and above all a chaser sent to someone who had kept to the agreement. The reconciliation, by contrast, runs every morning and asks for nothing: both sources are already open to me. What I propose: the daily reconciliation, the list of gaps, and the 62 documents put forward for filing with their date of arrival and the agreement they answer. What stays yours: filing into the library is an act of records management — I put forward, I do not file — and it has to be said whether a reconciled document counts as "received" for agreement monitoring from the moment it reaches the mailbox, or only when it is filed. Both are defensible: in the first case 9 delays disappear this morning; in the second they disappear on the day of filing. 4-expected-reports.pdf3 delays · 1 received but never filed
⛓ Source · 4 agreements and their articles, document library, shared mailbox

Are there others coming that we will miss?

Eleven documents are expected before the end of the year, and two this month.
What I did: reread your live agreements and record every document the other party must produce, with its date and the article providing for it. 34 agreements, 41 documents expected over twelve months.
What that changes: today those dates live inside the agreements, which is to say nowhere. That list exists nowhere, and an unreceived report produces no signal — an absence is silent by nature.
What I can do, if you approve: flag each expected document fifteen days before its date to the signing department, then on the date, then fifteen days late. No chaser is sent by me: I warn the person who will sign it.
And a quarterly summary to the chief executive: documents expected, received, late. By agreement, never by organisation — the point is keeping a calendar, not scoring partners. agreements_41-expected-documents.pdf34 agreements · 41 documents · 11 before December
✎ Proposal · 41 dates tracked — chasers stay with the signing department

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

Audit & scoping

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

Quote or direct sign-up

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

Design

We design the agent and its guardrails.

Integration & testing

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

Rollout

Going live and training your team.

Operation

Continuous supervision and improvement.

The context

What does an AI agent bring to reading your long documents?

A summary in which every element is referenced lets you go straight to the useful passage.

! The issue

Working through a long document calls for drawing out the essentials and being able to go back to the exact passage. A summary with no reference forces a re-read; a summary referenced page by page makes the document usable straight away. That is the behaviour built into the agent's design.

✓ Our answer

Your officers have a structured, referenced summary and the list of what the document does not deal with. Drawing a conclusion for the administration rests with them: the document informs a decision, it does not take it. 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, your working documents and your files in progress do not leave your perimeter.

The decisive point

Your working documents and your files in progress: sovereignty & compliance

Your working documents and your files in progress call for strict confidentiality. Here is how it is assured.

Local inference

With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to your organisation: no document and no extract 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 your working documents and your files 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 working documents.

Every element refers back to its page

The summary cites the page of every element kept and flags what the document does not deal with; encryption, role-based access and logging.

AI Act: governed deployment

The agent carries out what you have authorised; no conclusion is presented as the administration's; 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 unpublished reports and files covered by secrecy, 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 documents can a department work through?

By taking on the summarising and the referencing, the effort shifts towards analysis and decision. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.

Reading a long document

Today · done by hand

Summary produced

Finding the useful passage

Today · done by hand

Page cited

Checking what is not dealt with

Today · done by hand

Gaps flagged

Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on the volume of documents handled each month. Drawing a conclusion for the administration rests with your officers: the document informs the decision, it does not take it.

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 documents

With 100% Sovereign, your working documents 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 document entrusted to a third party, no content used to train a model.

Data in France, under French lawYour working documents and your files in progress: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

Your officers keep the decisionThe agent produces referenced summaries, which can be checked and altered; the decisions remain yours.

Human oversight & traceabilityOn the volume of documents handled each month: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.

Going further

Related resources

Public sector AI agents →Our full offer Sovereign AI hosted in France →Our confidentiality commitment

Frequently asked questions

Your questions, our answers

What documents does the agent handle?

Reports, studies, files and case law, in the common formats. The scope is settled at the design stage.

How do I check an element of the summary?

Every element kept refers back to its page in the document, so you can go straight to the passage.

What does it do if a question is not dealt with?

It flags it as not dealt with by the document, rather than filling the gap. A summary must not add to its source.

Does the agent draw conclusions?

It reports the findings and the recommendations made in the document. The administration's conclusions rest with your officers.

Are our documents 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. Your documents are not used to train a third-party model.

How long does it take to deploy this agent?

A few weeks as a rule, depending on the volume and the nature of the documents handled, after a meeting with our sales team then a phase of design, integration and testing.

Related use cases

Other agents for your administration

Council minutes →Elected assemblies Supporting documents →Data extraction Information & monitoring officer →Regulatory monitoring Public administrations and institutions →The nine agents for acts and citizens

Let's talk

Let us estimate the potential across your documents

30 minutes to frame your volumes and your types of document — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.

Write to us