Say only what the evidence carries: draft the holding line, log the hour it went out and to whom, and leave the assurance itself to the named officer who signs it.
A holding line is drafted, and what the evidence carries stays apart from what it promises.
02
An hour is stamped on the draft, because 16 CFR 1115.14(e) reads immediately as twenty-four hours.
Reason
03
A negative about scope is asked for, and the draft returns the reads, not the absence.
04
A supervisory authority is notified, and Article 33(5) makes that record the one read back.
05
A media notice is drafted, and 45 CFR 164.406(c) fixes the elements it has to carry.
Decide
06
A later fact contradicts an assurance, and it routes to the officer whose name went under it.
07
A correction is issued, written as a new line with its own hour, and the old line stands.
Out
08
One event is tailored four ways, and the four drafts are held side by side before one goes.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Drafting, timing and the record belong to the agent. The assurance, and the signature under it, belong to a named officer who answers for it years afterwards.
Example workflow
One assurance, event to issue
AgentHuman
1Event notifiedA field report, an authority query, a customer complaint or a line from the incident record
2Facts assembled and datedWhat the evidence carries, the source of each line, the hour it arrived and what is still open
3Holding line draftedThe draft, its sources, what it does not assert and confidence
4Controls appliedSource checks, negative-assertion checks, clock checks and drafting confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is published at any of them — the agent is drafting, and the officer lane opens at the issue gate.
5DecisionSplits at the issue gate
Acknowledgement only
Goes to the named officer to issue.
Anything asserting scope
Adds a crisis-lead read first.
Officer review
The draft is held with its sources, what it does not assert and the clock it sits under.
Issue · Amend · Send to crisis-lead review
Issued — by the named officer▼
6Notification and timeline records updatedOnly where write access and disclosure policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedAssurance accuracy, retracted lines, officer corrections and what the later review turned up
Corrections
Each correction the officer makes counts in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Making the materiality determination that starts a clock.
Signing a section 15(b) report to the Commission.
Promising that no payment data was reached.
Deciding a public notice is equally effective.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Draft the holding line from evidence on record.
✓Keep the assurance and the evidence apart in one dated record.
✓Mark what a draft does not assert, beside the facts it does carry.
✓Hold each draft for the officer who issues it.
Nothing is published except by a named officer, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a risk to rights is high.
Telling the public that the facts are settled.
Choosing the hour a statutory clock is dated from.
Changes to the holding rules or the issue gate.
Example output
One holding line, annotated
An engineering agent keeps the technical incident record; this one keeps what was said outward while the facts were still moving. Below is one draft exactly as the agent leaves it.
Draft output · single eventIllustrative example
Event
Recorded as
Asserted
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
Field reports, one product lot
Reports of one failure mode, unverified
Draft only
Field report, 3 August 2026
Held unissued
The named officer, by name
As receivedDrawn from the field reports and the notification log, and it asserts nothing those two do not carry.
What the record holdsField report linesNotification logApproval trail
Why no issue hereGiving the public an assurance is an act a named officer alone owns.
ActionIssueAmendSend to crisis-lead review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold a draft gets a crisis-lead read before the officer sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Each assuranceFrom the evidence that carries it
03Assurance
Where the assurance is used
Routing a draft through counsel did not protect it in the rulings consulted: facts owed under a statutory duty stayed discoverable, and a lawyer name entered the record beside them.
01Approved path
Said before it was known
The clocks in force start at a judgement — materiality, high risk, significance — and the agent is quickest at the step that comes after one is made.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No rule consulted prescribes the words a holding line must use while the facts are still moving. CIRCIA is the clock quoted most often here and it binds nobody, its final rule unpublished; BOD 22-01 stands revoked; and the AI Act incident article binds providers of high-risk systems, now deferred.
04Build an evidence trail
The holding line, the hour it was issued and the officer who approved it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Notification and disclosureSEC EDGAR · CPSC · DFS portals Statutory notification channels
Evidence and case recordsComplaint logs · field reports Serious-injury intake logs
Statement and distributionNewsroom · wire services · portals Customer email and public notices
Agent
Crisis communication and notice
Reads the evidence Drafts the line Holds the issue
Timeline and approvalsLegal hold · matter management Approval trails and issued versions
A class-level assurance figure can read clean while consumer-safety notifications carry most of the officer corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by event class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Consumer-safety notifications
11.9%
3.7×
Review
Cross-border regulator notices
8.4%
2.6×
Review
First-hour holding lines
5.3%
1.6×
Watch
Routine acknowledgement lines
2.4%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. routine-acknowledgement baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an early assurance costs
A cycle shuts when the assurance the facts later contradicted is a standing case. That suite is what the next incident run is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on consumer-safety notices.
02Diagnose
The sentence issued in the first hours that told the public what had not yet been established is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Statements ship numbered, and the timeline behind them travels attached.
04Verify
Each touched assurance case is run again, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
The case is kept, and the escalation rules are amended in that same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next event meets a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, drafting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Crisis-communication and automation-boundary scope.
02Evidence, notice and approval sources.
03Statutory-notification and officer-signature mapping.
04Evidence and notice intake.
05Fact binding and draft logic.
06Confidence scoring and crisis-lead routing.
07Officer issue workflow.
08Notification-system integration.
09Assurance and timing cases.
10Guardrails and escalation controls.
11Timeline instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne event class, one cycleProductionProduction crisis-comms workflowAdvancedMultiple regulators / jurisdictions
Introduced at Pilot
Drafting to your holding rules✓✓✓
Named officer issue✓✓✓
Notification-clock baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by incident class—✓✓
Crisis-lead review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved timeline write-back—✓✓
Rota-and-registry integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-regime holding rules——✓
Cross-jurisdiction notice packs——✓
High event volume——✓
Multi-regulator notification controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, notification volume, escalation controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your live event classes and the notice each one triggers→Holding-rule capture and clock versioningWeek 1
02Representative events, evidence sets and past statements→Source binding, drafting logic and the notification baselineWeek 2
03Your escalation rota and the officers it names→Holding-rule mapping, clock binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Evidence, notification and approval source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Assurances you would not want replayed→Timing cases and the evaluation roundWeek 4
06What no holding line may promise→Confidence scoring, review routing, guardrails and issue controlsWeek 3
07A named officer who issues the statement→Handover to the named officer, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
A band here is as wide as its phase costs, so the fifth week shows a pair instead of a neat blank.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Holding-rule discovery, clock versioning and the automation boundaryW2Evidence and notification integration and the timeline baselineW3Fact binding, drafting logic and issue controlsW4Evaluation suite, timing cases and failure-mode testingW5Notification-system integration, pilot events and targeted correctionsW6One exercise cycle run under the crisis lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach band spans only the weeks its own work is named for, and the fifth carries two.
At the end of W6Once the timeline record validates, Agent Care adopts the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Public relations AI agent
Build a crisis communication copilot around the sentence your last event published too early.
Show us one event and the first line you put out about it. Not how quickly you responded. What you promised while the facts were still moving, the hour you promised it, and whose name went under it. An assurance the evidence did not carry comes back as a case.
