Hold each student's reporting record — the events, the evidence and the clocks — for the designated school official who decides. The school's exposure is administrative; the student's is their presence in the country.
2Evidence gatheredEach fact with the system it came from, its timestamp and who saw it first
3Record assembledEvent, evidence and its strength, the clock and what started it, and confidence
4Controls appliedCorroboration checks, authorisation-basis checks, the refusal list and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and none of them determines a status or proposes a termination — the agent is assembling, and the official lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the designated school official.
Low confidence
Adds a principal-official read first.
Official review
The record is held with its evidence, the strength of that evidence and the clock.
Review · Correct · Send to the PDSO
Reviewed — the official reports▼
6Office case record updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedEvidence sufficiency, clock accuracy, corrections raised and reports not made
Corrections
Every official correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Proposing a status determination, in any form an official could act on.
Proposing a termination — not as a draft, a score or a pre-filled field.
Reporting anything to SEVIS, or entering a record for an official.
Issuing, signing or updating a Form I-20.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Assemble the per-event record and name the system each fact came from.
✓Run each clock from the change, and record what started it.
✓Mark the strength of the evidence, and show it beside the clock.
✓Show what is missing, and keep gather more as a tracked outcome.
Wrong after a report and a student can lose their stay within days; in 2025 the fix was litigation.
Matching a student against any criminal or enforcement data source, ever.
Authorising a reduced course load, CPT, OPT or a shortened programme.
Ranking, scoring or risk-classifying students in any way.
Changes to event rules, clock configuration or review thresholds.
Example output
One student record, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the system it came from.
Reporting-record output · single studentIllustrative example
Student
Assembled finding
Clock
Rule applied
Confidence
Evidence strength
F-1, third term
A registrar drop is the only support behind a failure-to-maintain event
Day 9 of 21
8 CFR 214.3(g)(2)
87%
Weak — one system, uncorroborated
As receivedTaken from the registrar system as it stands — our enrollment and records agent owns that system, not this one, and nothing on this side is inferred.
Evidence usedRegistrar status flagTerm registration recordNo corroborating source
Why this flagOne system said so and nothing else did — the strength is the finding, and the clock is not a reason to act.
ActionReviewCorrectSend to the PDSO
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the record picks up a principal-official read before the official 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 studentFrom the registrar system
03Assembling
Assemble against the rule as written
Draw on the events on file, the clocks and the evidence under each. The shipped advising agent routes anything touching immigration to the named professional, and this page is what that referral defers to — the professional is a designated school official DHS has approved by name.
01Approved path
Gather more is the default
Routine event capture and clock arithmetic arrive already done.
02Human review
Show the weak evidence louder than the clock
Under-evidenced events are marked as loudly as missed deadlines. In March 2025 a mass match of student records against a criminal database produced terminations a federal judge said from the bench on 29 April 2025 all present agreed were arbitrary and capricious.
04Build an evidence trail
The event, the evidence beneath it and the official who reported stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
SEVIS and SEVPSEVIS RTI batch Form I-17 and I-20 records
A term-level evidence-sufficiency figure can read sound while a single event class holds most of the thin records and the unstarted clocks. Nestack reports the gap 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
Failure-to-maintain events
9.0%
3.7×
Review
Reduced course load events
6.6%
2.7×
Review
OPT and STEM OPT changes
4.2%
1.7×
Watch
Name and address changes
1.9%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: gap-rate lift vs. the name-and-address-change baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
An under-evidenced report ends as a test
The loop shuts when the under-evidenced report is a regression case. That suite is what the next event worked is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Gap rate rises in one event class.
02Diagnose
The address change that was reported before anyone checked it was real is read back through its evidence and its source until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
Any change ships with a number, and the events attach to it.
04Verify
One event case still failing is enough to hold the release.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the reporting record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next detection runs 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, reporting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Reporting workflow discovery and refusal boundary.
02SEVIS and student-system assessment.
03Event, clock and evidence-strength rule mapping.
04Event and evidence ingestion.
05Clock arithmetic and source binding.
06Confidence scoring and event routing.
07Designated-official review workflow.
08Student-system and SEVIS integration.
09Evidence and clock cases.
10Guardrails and reporting controls.
11Event-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 campus, one termProductionProduction SEVIS and student systemsAdvancedMultiple campuses / programmes
Introduced at Pilot
Evidence assembly to the rule as written✓✓✓
Designated-official review✓✓✓
Evidence-sufficiency baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by event class—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved record write-back—✓✓
Student-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-programme event rules——✓
Multi-stage official review——✓
High student volume——✓
Multi-campus reporting controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, student volume, review 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 event sources and where each one lands→Event and evidence ingestion, and source bindingWeek 1
02Representative records from a past term→Evidence-sufficiency baseline and clock normalisationWeek 2
03Your rule register and where each belief came from→Event, clock and evidence-strength rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→SEVIS and student-system review, then integration setupWeek 2
05Reports you would not want defended→Evidence cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no report may infer→Confidence scoring, event routing, guardrails and reporting controlsWeek 3
07The designated school officials who decide→Official review workflow, 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
Time on the work fixes every width drawn on here, and that is what puts two bands into week five.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Reporting workflow discovery, rule mapping and the refusal boundaryW2Source integration and the evidence-sufficiency baselineW3Clock arithmetic, evidence strength and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, evidence cases and failure-mode testingW5SEVIS and student-system integration, a pilot term and targeted correctionsW6One term run under the designated school official, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar sits only on the weeks its work is named in. The fifth-week overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Once the term validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Education AI agent
Build a SEVIS reporting agent around the official who decides.
Show us your event sources, your clocks and who holds the designation. The record has to survive a withdrawal notice with 30 days to answer, a student reading back the day their record changed, and a rule change still before a court.
