Hold each transcript inside the consent it was taken under: purpose tagged at intake, sensitive lines redacted, retention clocks running, and the coded themes released by a named research lead.
A consent is taken, and Art. 5(1)(b) binds the corpus to the purpose it names.
02
A transcript lands, and the study purpose, the recording state and the retention date ride with it.
Reason
03
A recording starts, and Florida and Pennsylvania turn on expectation, not on secrecy.
04
A line reveals a diagnosis, and C-184/20 puts it inside Art. 9 whether or not it was sought.
05
A corpus is queried, and the Art. 6(4) compatibility factors are put to the question first.
Decide
06
A withdrawal arrives, and EDPB Opinion 28/2024 denies the model a blanket claim to anonymity.
07
A study runs under a Federalwide Assurance, and 45 CFR 46 attaches to work it never funded.
Out
08
A theme is coded, and no rule reaches that step, so the controls sit around it instead.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Tagging, redaction and coding belong to the agent. Release belongs to a named research lead, and a wrong finding is withdrawn, re-coded and logged against the study.
Example workflow
One study, consent to finding
AgentHuman
1Session material receivedRecordings, transcripts, moderator notes, diary entries or intercept responses
2Consent and purpose boundThe purpose the participant agreed to, the recording state, the jurisdiction and the retention date
3Redaction and coding runThe redacted transcript, the codes applied, the quotes carried and confidence
4Controls appliedPurpose checks, special-category checks, retention checks and coding confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing leaves the repository at any of them — the agent is coding, and the researcher lane opens at the purpose gate.
5DecisionSplits at the purpose gate
Purpose matches consent
Goes to the named research lead.
Anything outside it
Adds a privacy counsel read first.
Researcher review
The theme is held with its quotes, its consent scope and the redactions made.
Release · Append quote · Send to privacy review
Released — by the named research lead▼
6Repository and report records updatedOnly where write access and retention policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedPurpose fit, redaction misses, researcher corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each researcher correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Releasing a finding into a product decision.
Setting the purpose a study is collected for.
Deciding a corpus may answer a new question.
Signing a participant consent form.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Bind each transcript to the consent record behind it.
✓Run the coding pass, and carry each quote back to its transcript.
✓Redact special-category lines as the corpus is indexed.
✓Hold each theme for the named research lead, with its scope attached.
Nothing leaves the repository except by a named research lead, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a theme is supported at all.
Inferring emotion from voice or facial video.
Extracting a voiceprint or face geometry.
Changes to consent, retention or purpose rules.
Example output
One coded theme, annotated
This serves a research team who may have to show, long after a study closed, what a participant agreed to; below is one theme exactly as the agent leaves it.
Theme output · single studyIllustrative example
Study
Coded theme
Quote carried
Consent of record
Confidence
Held for
Onboarding, mid-market admins
Setup stalls at the invite step
Purpose tag, onboarding
Consent form, 3 August 2026
Held unreleased
The named research lead, by name
As receivedTaken from the recorded session and the signed consent, and it claims nothing beyond them.
What the record holdsSigned consentRedacted transcriptRetention date
Why no release hereTaking a theme into a product decision is a judgement a lead makes.
ActionReleaseAppend quoteSend to privacy review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold a theme gets a privacy read before the lead 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
Every transcriptFrom the consent it was taken under
03Analysis
Where the corpus is used
A research agent collapses a citation chain to a source; this one holds the words of a named participant under the consent they were given under.
01Approved path
The corpus outlived its purpose
Ask a repository a question nobody was recruited for, and the purpose recorded at collection stops covering it, with nobody having lied.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No rule was found requiring a company to run user research, to run it competently or to report what it finds honestly, and Illinois has had no flat all-party recording prohibition since Public Act 98-1142, so what the agent carries is the consent, not a standard of practice.
04Build an evidence trail
The transcript, the consent it was taken under and the researcher who coded it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Research repositoriesDovetail · Condens · EnjoyHQ Coded studies, quotes and tags
Session recordingZoom · Teams · Lookback Session recordings and transcripts
Participant panelsRespondent · User Interviews Screeners, consents and incentive records
Agent
User-research analysis
Reads the consent Codes the transcript Holds for the lead
Product and issue systemsJira · Productboard · Notion Findings, themes and the issues raised
A study-level purpose figure can read clean while a small number of re-used legacy corpora carry most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Re-used legacy corpora
11.4%
3.7×
Review
Employee-participant studies
8.1%
2.6×
Review
Recorded video sessions
5.1%
1.7×
Watch
Single-study text corpora
2.5%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. single-study baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a widened corpus costs
A loop closes when the study reused outside its stated purpose is a standing case. That suite is what the next corpus indexed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on re-used legacy corpora.
02Diagnose
The interviews taken to fix onboarding, now answering a question about price, are read back against the consent until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Number the change; the transcripts that drove it are filed beneath it.
04Verify
A single red consent case stops the whole release.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the intake rules.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next corpus is measured against 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, transcript analysis, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Consent-scope mapping and automation-boundary work.
02Repository, recorder and panel sources.
03Purpose-to-transcript and consent-coverage mapping.
04Transcript ingestion.
05Consent, purpose and study binding.
06Redaction scoring and review routing.
07Researcher release workflow.
08Repository and tracker integration.
09Consent and purpose cases.
10Guardrails and purge controls.
11Transcript-trail 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 study, one roundProductionProduction research workflowAdvancedMultiple studies / regions
Introduced at Pilot
Coding to your study purposes✓✓✓
Named researcher release✓✓✓
Participant-consent baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by study purpose—✓✓
Researcher review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Repository-and-recorder integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-jurisdiction recording rules——✓
Cross-study theme packs——✓
Large transcript archives——✓
Multi-study retention controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transcript volume, approval 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 studies and the purpose each was collected for→Consent capture and purpose versioningWeek 1
02Representative transcripts, recordings and notes→Source binding, redaction rules and the coding baselineWeek 2
03Your retention schedule and the leads it names→Consent mapping, purpose binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Repository, recorder and panel assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Transcripts you would not want subpoenaed→Purpose cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no study may re-use→Redaction scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named research lead who releases the finding→Release to the named research lead, 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
Two phases genuinely share week five here, and not one band was widened to make the column look tidy.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Consent discovery, purpose versioning and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the participant-consent baselineW3Coding workflow, redaction logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, purpose cases and failure-mode testingW5Repository integration, pilot studies and targeted correctionsW6One study round run under the research lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA band covers the weeks its own work is named in, and week five carries two by design.
At the end of W6When the consent record validates, Agent Care picks the agent up.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Product AI agent
Build a user-research agent around the consent your last study was taken under.
Show us one study you would re-open today and the form its participants signed. That form covered one purpose, for one study, for a stated term. If you build a regulated device, the record you must keep is the one the GDPR pushes you to delete.
