● Public sector offer — Post & incoming flows
Incoming post: indexed the same day, sent to the right department
A letter directed on the day it arrives saves the member of the public several days. Your agent reads scanned paper post as well as electronic post, extracts the subject, the sender and the file references, then directs it to the department responsible under your filing plan. Hosted in France: members of the public's data stays within your administration. The post room approves the routing and handles the unusual cases.
Hosted in France
Public's data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Incoming post · hosted in France
Handle the post that arrived this morning.
Letters indexed: subject, sender, date, file references found in the text.
The routing proposed follows your filing plan, with the reason used for each.
Four letters fall under more than one department: they are presented for a decision.
🔗 Sourced · the text of the letter and the filing plan
The routing proposed follows your filing plan, with the reason used for each.
Four letters fall under more than one department: they are presented for a decision.
🔗 Sourced · the text of the letter and the filing plan
And letters from members of the public in difficulty?
Letters falling under the categories you have flagged — social circumstances, complaint, referral from an elected representative — are brought to the top with their subject.
How they are handled and how they are prioritised rest with the department: the agent makes them visible without deciding anything.
✎ Support · letters flagged, the department's decision
How they are handled and how they are prioritised rest with the department: the agent makes them visible without deciding anything.
✎ Support · letters flagged, the department's decision
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Post hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The post room decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent incoming post agent indexes scanned paper and electronic post — subject, sender, file references — and directs it under your filing plan, with the reason used to back it up. The categories you flag are brought to the top. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: members of the public's data stays with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity The mail room receives the routing decisions in Microsoft Teams, Slack or its email, and steers the agent from a web dashboard. Requests arriving on WhatsApp Business, the website chat or email are handled by the agents dedicated to enquiries and to phone reception. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
post handling 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 post and how detailed your filing plan is is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your incoming post?
A letter directed the same day means a reply time shortened by just as much for the member of the public.
! The issue
Handling incoming post calls for reading every item and applying a filing plan. Both acts are routine and high-volume; the agent takes them on and keeps the reason for every routing, so that a misdirection can be corrected immediately.
✓ Our answer
The post room approves routings that already come with reasons and concentrates on the unusual cases: letters falling under several departments, flagged situations, referrals from elected representatives. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: the personal data members of the public entrust to you does not leave the administration.
The decisive point
Members of the public's personal data: sovereignty & compliance
The public's post contains personal data, sometimes sensitive. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no letter and no data about a member of the public leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your paper and electronic post: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For members of the public's personal data, 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 filing plan.
Reason for routing kept
Every letter keeps its subject, its routing and the reason used; encryption, role-based access and logging of what is processed.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no letter is filed without a check and no reply is sent; 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 letters involving social circumstances, litigation or a referral from an elected representative, 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.
Incoming mail · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on yesterday's mail.
· One letter carries a two-month appeal window running from 12 June. It landed in a department that does not handle appeals. Four days remain.
· Three letters from the same resident, arriving separately, concern the same case and went to three different departments.
· A recorded-delivery letter was scanned but its receipt was never matched to the delivery — the enforceable date of receipt is missing.
· Eleven letters have been awaiting routing for more than five days. All carry a subject I could not attach: that is my limit, not theirs. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · letters concerned
⛓ Source · yesterday's scanning, mail register, open case files
· One letter carries a two-month appeal window running from 12 June. It landed in a department that does not handle appeals. Four days remain.
· Three letters from the same resident, arriving separately, concern the same case and went to three different departments.
· A recorded-delivery letter was scanned but its receipt was never matched to the delivery — the enforceable date of receipt is missing.
· Eleven letters have been awaiting routing for more than five days. All carry a subject I could not attach: that is my limit, not theirs. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · letters concerned
⛓ Source · yesterday's scanning, mail register, open case files
The appeal window — explain.
A letter that arrived properly, was scanned properly, and was routed to the wrong department.
What the letter says: it challenges a decision of 12/06 and uses the words "I challenge" and "I ask you to withdraw". The contested decision is attached, with its statement of the time limit.
Where it went: to the department that handled the original case, because the case name appears there. That department does not handle appeals — it has parked it pending an opinion.
What I checked: the attached decision is dated 12/06 and its notification is recorded on 14/06 in your register. The two-month window expires on 14/08: four working days remain.
What is ready, and what gets signed: the reroute is written, with both dates, the passage of the letter that qualifies it as an appeal, and the competent department — it goes out the second the mailroom approves it, and four working days remain. The reroute is signed by them: it changes who answers and under what deadline. The merits of the appeal belong to the department that will answer, with the contested decision in front of them. letter_appeal-4-days.pdf2 dates · passage quoted · reroute proposed
⛓ Source · letter scanned 05/08, attached decision of 12/06, notification register
What the letter says: it challenges a decision of 12/06 and uses the words "I challenge" and "I ask you to withdraw". The contested decision is attached, with its statement of the time limit.
Where it went: to the department that handled the original case, because the case name appears there. That department does not handle appeals — it has parked it pending an opinion.
What I checked: the attached decision is dated 12/06 and its notification is recorded on 14/06 in your register. The two-month window expires on 14/08: four working days remain.
What is ready, and what gets signed: the reroute is written, with both dates, the passage of the letter that qualifies it as an appeal, and the competent department — it goes out the second the mailroom approves it, and four working days remain. The reroute is signed by them: it changes who answers and under what deadline. The merits of the appeal belong to the department that will answer, with the contested decision in front of them. letter_appeal-4-days.pdf2 dates · passage quoted · reroute proposed
⛓ Source · letter scanned 05/08, attached decision of 12/06, notification register
And the eleven you could not classify?
They are in the mailroom, not in a bin. A letter I cannot attach does not vanish: it goes to a person, with what I was missing.
Why I could not: 4 are handwritten and barely legible; 3 cite no case, no address, no reference; 2 cover two subjects at once, falling to two departments; 2 use vocabulary your taxonomy does not contain.
The last two are the most interesting: they concern a scheme you opened in June that your mail taxonomy does not yet know. That is not a failing of the agent, it is a taxonomy to complete — and I can tell you which words recur.
Three operating rules, and they read as guarantees. No reply is sent without a signature, no letter is filed without a human recipient, and none is ever deleted. What I did before handing them over: the eleven unattached letters arrive with whatever I was missing on each, and the last two produced a proposal: the words of the scheme opened in June, to be added to your taxonomy. The clock runs whether I saw it or not — which is why a letter I have doubts about goes to the mailroom the same day, and never into a bin. 11-letters_what-was-missing.pdf11 letters · 5 causes · 2 words to add
✎ Proposal · taxonomy to complete — routing stays with the mailroom
Why I could not: 4 are handwritten and barely legible; 3 cite no case, no address, no reference; 2 cover two subjects at once, falling to two departments; 2 use vocabulary your taxonomy does not contain.
The last two are the most interesting: they concern a scheme you opened in June that your mail taxonomy does not yet know. That is not a failing of the agent, it is a taxonomy to complete — and I can tell you which words recur.
Three operating rules, and they read as guarantees. No reply is sent without a signature, no letter is filed without a human recipient, and none is ever deleted. What I did before handing them over: the eleven unattached letters arrive with whatever I was missing on each, and the last two produced a proposal: the words of the scheme opened in June, to be added to your taxonomy. The clock runs whether I saw it or not — which is why a letter I have doubts about goes to the mailroom the same day, and never into a bin. 11-letters_what-was-missing.pdf11 letters · 5 causes · 2 words to add
✎ Proposal · taxonomy to complete — routing stays with the mailroom
How do you decide who a letter goes to?
On what the letter says, and I show you the passage.
What I read, in order: a case reference if the letter carries one — the safest signal; the stated subject where there is one; the terms in the body matched against your taxonomy; the sender, if already known to an open case.
What I produce: a proposed department, and the exact passage that decided it, highlighted in the letter.
What I produce instead of a confidence score: the exact passage, highlighted, and the rank of the signal that kept it — case reference, stated subject, taxonomy term, known sender. Of the week's 312 letters, 194 went out on a case reference, the safest signal, and the reviewing officer sees it at a glance. A number between 0 and 100 teaches the reviewer nothing — it invites trust without looking. The passage can be checked in two seconds.
Across the week's 312 letters: 287 routed with a quoted passage, 25 sent up to the mailroom with the reason.
The 25 are not failures: they are the letters that needed a person to see them. routing_312-letters.pdf287 routed · 25 escalated · passage quoted
⛓ Source · departmental taxonomy, 312 letters from the week of 27/07
What I read, in order: a case reference if the letter carries one — the safest signal; the stated subject where there is one; the terms in the body matched against your taxonomy; the sender, if already known to an open case.
What I produce: a proposed department, and the exact passage that decided it, highlighted in the letter.
What I produce instead of a confidence score: the exact passage, highlighted, and the rank of the signal that kept it — case reference, stated subject, taxonomy term, known sender. Of the week's 312 letters, 194 went out on a case reference, the safest signal, and the reviewing officer sees it at a glance. A number between 0 and 100 teaches the reviewer nothing — it invites trust without looking. The passage can be checked in two seconds.
Across the week's 312 letters: 287 routed with a quoted passage, 25 sent up to the mailroom with the reason.
The 25 are not failures: they are the letters that needed a person to see them. routing_312-letters.pdf287 routed · 25 escalated · passage quoted
⛓ Source · departmental taxonomy, 312 letters from the week of 27/07
And when you get it wrong?
The officer who receives the letter corrects it, and the correction is visible.
What happens: they pick the right department, and they have nothing to justify — a correction that requires a form is never made.
What I do with the correction: I keep it by routing reason, never by officer. What interests me is which term misled me, not who corrected me.
What that gave this month: 19 corrections across 1,240 letters. And 7 of the 19 turn on the same term: a word appearing in two entries of your taxonomy, attached to two departments.
It is your taxonomy that is ambiguous, not the officers who get it wrong — and a single line changed makes all seven disappear.
The monthly summary is by reason: the terms that mislead me, the ambiguous entries, the subjects missing. No ranking of officers, no individual handling times. 19-corrections_by-reason.pdf19 corrections · 7 on one term
✎ Support · 19 corrections analysed — 7 turn on one taxonomy entry
What happens: they pick the right department, and they have nothing to justify — a correction that requires a form is never made.
What I do with the correction: I keep it by routing reason, never by officer. What interests me is which term misled me, not who corrected me.
What that gave this month: 19 corrections across 1,240 letters. And 7 of the 19 turn on the same term: a word appearing in two entries of your taxonomy, attached to two departments.
It is your taxonomy that is ambiguous, not the officers who get it wrong — and a single line changed makes all seven disappear.
The monthly summary is by reason: the terms that mislead me, the ambiguous entries, the subjects missing. No ranking of officers, no individual handling times. 19-corrections_by-reason.pdf19 corrections · 7 on one term
✎ Support · 19 corrections analysed — 7 turn on one taxonomy entry
Some letters we simply cannot afford to see three days later.
Those are the flagged categories, and you are the ones who designate them.
Your five flagged categories, as your management designated them: letters carrying an enforceable appeal or response deadline; formal notices and solicitors' letters; reports of danger on a facility or a road; letters from elected representatives and supervisory authorities; requests for access to administrative documents. A letter falling into one of those categories moves to the top of the pile, whatever its order of arrival, with the passage of the letter that lifted it — the exact sentence, not a score.
What that produced on yesterday's post: 7 letters flagged out of 214, including the one carrying a two-month appeal deadline running since 12 June that had landed in a department that does not handle appeals: 4 days remain, and it is at the top of the pile this morning instead of being discovered next week.
What the lift is not: it prejudges nothing and characterises nothing. A letter flagged “formal notice” is flagged because it carries those words, not because I have appraised its legal effect — characterisation and the action to take belong to the department and, where appropriate, to your legal adviser. A flagged category buys days; it buys no arguments.
What that gives back: over the last twelve months, 41 letters in these categories arrived within five days of their deadline without being spotted, and 9 were spotted after it. Since going live, none of the 214 flagged letters has slipped past its deadline, and the average routing time for a flagged letter is 19 minutes against 2.4 days.
The figure that does not flatter me: 11 letters have been waiting for routing for more than five days because I could not attach their subject to anything — that is my limit, and it is visible rather than hidden behind a random routing. I read the 11 back: 8 concern a competence transferred to the joint authority in January, absent from your routing table. I offer you the three lines to add; in the meantime, a letter I cannot attach goes to the general secretariat marked “unattached” with its apparent deadline, never to a department picked at random.
⛓ Sourced · 5 flagged categories designated by management, 7 letters lifted out of 214, 19 min against 2.4 days
Your five flagged categories, as your management designated them: letters carrying an enforceable appeal or response deadline; formal notices and solicitors' letters; reports of danger on a facility or a road; letters from elected representatives and supervisory authorities; requests for access to administrative documents. A letter falling into one of those categories moves to the top of the pile, whatever its order of arrival, with the passage of the letter that lifted it — the exact sentence, not a score.
What that produced on yesterday's post: 7 letters flagged out of 214, including the one carrying a two-month appeal deadline running since 12 June that had landed in a department that does not handle appeals: 4 days remain, and it is at the top of the pile this morning instead of being discovered next week.
What the lift is not: it prejudges nothing and characterises nothing. A letter flagged “formal notice” is flagged because it carries those words, not because I have appraised its legal effect — characterisation and the action to take belong to the department and, where appropriate, to your legal adviser. A flagged category buys days; it buys no arguments.
What that gives back: over the last twelve months, 41 letters in these categories arrived within five days of their deadline without being spotted, and 9 were spotted after it. Since going live, none of the 214 flagged letters has slipped past its deadline, and the average routing time for a flagged letter is 19 minutes against 2.4 days.
The figure that does not flatter me: 11 letters have been waiting for routing for more than five days because I could not attach their subject to anything — that is my limit, and it is visible rather than hidden behind a random routing. I read the 11 back: 8 concern a competence transferred to the joint authority in January, absent from your routing table. I offer you the three lines to add; in the meantime, a letter I cannot attach goes to the general secretariat marked “unattached” with its apparent deadline, never to a department picked at random.
⛓ Sourced · 5 flagged categories designated by management, 7 letters lifted out of 214, 19 min against 2.4 days
The three letters from the same resident — how did you link them?
Through the case, not the person.
What links them: all three cite the same case reference, written three different ways — with hyphens, without, and with one letter too many. It is the reference that makes the link, not the name.
Why they went to different places: the first is about the case, the second about a document to supply, and the third about an appointment. Three subjects, three departments, one case.
What that changes: the department handling the case does not know the resident has written three times. It will answer one letter out of three, and the resident will write a fourth.
What I propose: attaching them to the case, while letting each department see all three — not redirecting them all to one.
What the matching runs on, and for how long: on an open case, and it ends when the case closes — never on a person. A history per person would turn a sorting tool into a register of residents, and it would last for ever instead of lasting one case. 3-letters_one-case.pdf3 spellings of the same reference
⛓ Source · 3 letters of 03, 04 and 05/08, shared case reference
What links them: all three cite the same case reference, written three different ways — with hyphens, without, and with one letter too many. It is the reference that makes the link, not the name.
Why they went to different places: the first is about the case, the second about a document to supply, and the third about an appointment. Three subjects, three departments, one case.
What that changes: the department handling the case does not know the resident has written three times. It will answer one letter out of three, and the resident will write a fourth.
What I propose: attaching them to the case, while letting each department see all three — not redirecting them all to one.
What the matching runs on, and for how long: on an open case, and it ends when the case closes — never on a person. A history per person would turn a sorting tool into a register of residents, and it would last for ever instead of lasting one case. 3-letters_one-case.pdf3 spellings of the same reference
⛓ Source · 3 letters of 03, 04 and 05/08, shared case reference
Are there many cases split like that?
Over three months: 74 cases received mail in more than one department.
What I looked at: letters carrying a case reference, and the department they landed in. 2,890 letters, 74 cases concerned.
What comes out of it: 52 of the 74 follow one pattern — an initial request, then a supporting document sent separately, which goes to the general mail department because it cites only a number and no subject.
The document arrives without its case, and the case waits for a document already received.
What fixes it: a loose document carrying the reference of an open case joins that case, and the handling department is told a document has arrived.
The gain is not small: those 52 cases waited an average of 9 days for a document that was already in the building. 74-cases_split-mail.pdf2,890 letters · 74 cases · 52 one cause
✎ Proposal · matching on open cases only — no history per person
What I looked at: letters carrying a case reference, and the department they landed in. 2,890 letters, 74 cases concerned.
What comes out of it: 52 of the 74 follow one pattern — an initial request, then a supporting document sent separately, which goes to the general mail department because it cites only a number and no subject.
The document arrives without its case, and the case waits for a document already received.
What fixes it: a loose document carrying the reference of an open case joins that case, and the handling department is told a document has arrived.
The gain is not small: those 52 cases waited an average of 9 days for a document that was already in the building. 74-cases_split-mail.pdf2,890 letters · 74 cases · 52 one cause
✎ Proposal · matching on open cases only — no history per person
The recorded delivery with no matched receipt — is that a problem?
It is the only one of my flags that touches an enforceable date.
What is missing: the letter is scanned and registered on 04/08. But the signed receipt was never matched to the delivery — so the date of first presentation is not in your register.
Why it matters: when a time limit runs from receipt, it is that date that counts, not the scanning date. Here they differ by two days.
What I did: I found three other recorded deliveries in the same state this month, all scanned, none with a matched receipt.
What I have prepared to go and get it: the list of four is ready, with each tracking number and the request to the carrier already drafted — the date comes back within 24 hours. An enforceable date is not inferred: it is read off the receipt or it is asked for, and it is entered in the register by whoever keeps it. 4-recorded-deliveries_date-to-retrieve.pdf4 items · tracking numbers · no date inferred
⛓ Source · mail register, 4 August recorded deliveries, tracking numbers
What is missing: the letter is scanned and registered on 04/08. But the signed receipt was never matched to the delivery — so the date of first presentation is not in your register.
Why it matters: when a time limit runs from receipt, it is that date that counts, not the scanning date. Here they differ by two days.
What I did: I found three other recorded deliveries in the same state this month, all scanned, none with a matched receipt.
What I have prepared to go and get it: the list of four is ready, with each tracking number and the request to the carrier already drafted — the date comes back within 24 hours. An enforceable date is not inferred: it is read off the receipt or it is asked for, and it is entered in the register by whoever keeps it. 4-recorded-deliveries_date-to-retrieve.pdf4 items · tracking numbers · no date inferred
⛓ Source · mail register, 4 August recorded deliveries, tracking numbers
What do you keep out of all this?
The strict minimum needed to find a letter again, and nothing more.
What is kept: the arrival date, the department routed to, the reason that decided it, the case reference where there is one, and any correction with its reason.
What is not kept: no sender profile, no history per person outside an open case, no statistics per officer, and no letter content beyond the period you set.
Why this is written here: an authority's mail contains requests for help, challenges, personal circumstances. A sorting tool that kept everything would become a register of residents — that is not what is being sold to you.
What stays open to you: you can see, at any time, why a given letter went to a given department. That is the only trace that genuinely serves: it explains a routing decision, it describes nobody. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 4 never kept
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the authority
What is kept: the arrival date, the department routed to, the reason that decided it, the case reference where there is one, and any correction with its reason.
What is not kept: no sender profile, no history per person outside an open case, no statistics per officer, and no letter content beyond the period you set.
Why this is written here: an authority's mail contains requests for help, challenges, personal circumstances. A sorting tool that kept everything would become a register of residents — that is not what is being sold to you.
What stays open to you: you can see, at any time, why a given letter went to a given department. That is the only trace that genuinely serves: it explains a routing decision, it describes nobody. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 4 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 handling the post. 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 775 € incl. VAT / month
Indexing the post
Extracts subject, sender, date and file references.
Reasoned routing
Applies your filing plan and keeps the reason used.
Flagged categories
Brings to the top the letters falling under the categories you name.
Controls and safeguards
These 3 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
Maintain validation, transparency, audit trail and recourse
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.
Integrate with authorised tools and the existing sovereign foundation
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 →
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 much post can a department direct the same day?
By taking on the reading and the indexing, the effort shifts towards the cases that call for a decision. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Reading and indexing the letters
Routing to the department responsible
Spotting the priority letters
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your volume of post and how detailed your filing plan is. The routings are approved by the post room, which handles the cases falling under several departments and the flagged situations.
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
An incoming post agent (indexing, routing, flagging), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
8,380 € incl. VAT setup
then 775 € 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
1,240 € incl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
12,461 € incl. VAT setup
then 1,015 € 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 the public you serve
The public's post stays within your administrationLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no letter entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawMembers of the public's personal data: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The post room keeps the decisionThe agent produces post that is indexed and routed, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your volume of post and how detailed your filing plan is: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent handle paper post?
Yes, from its scan, just as it handles electronic post. Both flows follow the same filing plan.
What does it do with a letter falling under several departments?
It presents it for a decision, with the departments concerned and the reason for each, rather than settling it.
Does it reply to the public?
No. It indexes and routes. Replying to a member of the public rests with the department responsible.
How is the filing plan taken into account?
It is configured at the design stage, exactly as your administration has drawn it up, and applied without interpretation.
Is the public's data 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. That data is 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 of post and how detailed your filing plan is, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Which tools does the mail room use to work with the agent?
The ones it already uses. The proposed routing, the requests for validation and the alerts on the categories you have designated arrive in Microsoft Teams, Slack or the department's email: nothing to install, nothing to learn. Oversight runs from a web dashboard. On the public side, requests received on WhatsApp Business, the website chat or email are handled by the agents dedicated to administrative enquiries and to phone reception, to which this page points. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes, and the catalogue grows at no extra cost. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Related use cases
Other agents for your administration
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your incoming post
15 minutes to frame your volumes and your filing plan — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.