Run each IEP clock in the unit your state actually uses, check who was on the team and which required fields are empty — and never draft, never propose accommodations, never summarise a file.
Consent arrives, and the evaluation clock starts on the day of receipt, in the unit that state uses.
02
A Texas clock runs in school days and a Georgia one in calendar days, and the exclusions ride with the count.
Reason
03
A New York consent starts two clocks in two different units, and the district has to hit both of them.
04
A review falls due, and 34 CFR 300.323(a) still asks whether an IEP is in effect on the first school day.
05
A meeting is convened, and 34 CFR 300.321(a) is read against the roster as it stands, before it opens.
Decide
06
An excusal is claimed, and the file is checked for the written consent and the written input it needs.
07
A notice falls due, and each content field 34 CFR 300.503(b) lists is tested for emptiness, nothing more.
Out
08
A re-evaluation date nears, and the agreement to forgo one is looked for before anything is chased.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent reports clocks and gaps; the team, which must include the parent, decides everything the plan says.
Example workflow
One case file, consent to review
AgentHuman
1Consent receivedSigned consent form, referral record, transfer file or eligibility determination
2Clocks computedEvaluation, eligibility, review and re-evaluation dates in the unit the state declares
3File checkedRoster as convened, excusal documents, empty required fields and confidence
4Controls appliedState-rule checks, roster tests against 34 CFR 300.321, notice-date checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and none of them writes a word into the plan — the agent is checking, and the case-manager lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the case manager to review.
Low confidence
Adds a compliance-office read first.
Case-manager review
The finding is held with the state rule it was computed under and the confidence.
Review · Correct · Send to compliance
Reviewed — the team convenes▼
6Case-management record updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedClock accuracy, roster findings, notice dates and compliance findings after the meeting
Corrections
Every case-manager correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Drafting any part of the plan — goals, services, minutes or placement.
Proposing, ranking or scoring an accommodation for a child.
Writing the other-options-considered text a notice has to carry.
Summarising a case file, a meeting history or a child.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Compute each clock in the unit the named state rule uses.
✓Test the roster as convened against the members required.
✓Report which required fields are empty, and nothing about content.
✓Track whether the invitation and the notice went, and on what date.
Get the unit wrong and a child is owed compensatory services; the district answers, not a signer.
Determining eligibility, or that a re-evaluation is unnecessary.
Sending the meeting invitation or the prior written notice.
Deciding that an excusal is acceptable in the circumstances.
Changes to state-rule configuration, clocks or review thresholds.
Example output
One case file, annotated
Everything the agent reports is attached to the date or the field it came from.
Timeline output · single case fileIllustrative example
Student
Finding
Clock
Rule applied
Confidence
Team status
Initial evaluation
Consent reached the school office before the date the system logged against it
Recount required
Tex. Educ. Code 29.004
91%
Regular education teacher unconfirmed
As receivedTaken from the consent record and the state rule — nothing on this side is decided by the agent.
Record fields usedDate-stamped consentExcusal documentMeeting invitation log
Why this flagThis state counts school days, and the office log is not the receipt date.
ActionReviewCorrectSend to compliance
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the finding picks up a compliance read before.
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 case fileFrom the consent record
03Checking
Check against the state rule
Draw on the consent dates, the roster and the fields on file. Deal v. Hamilton County, 6th Cir., 16 December 2004: participation must be more than a mere form, it must be meaningful — a finished document is a decision that arrived before the discussion.
01Approved path
It runs clocks, it writes nothing
Routine clock arithmetic and roster checks arrive already done.
02Human review
Point people at what can void
Missed units, unconfirmed members and empty fields are marked. The second most common AI use here is choosing accommodations, nearly doubled in a year; the agent refuses it.
04Build an evidence trail
The clock, the state rule it runs under and the team who decided stay on the file.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Special-education systemsFrontline Special Education PowerSchool Special Programs
Student information systemsPowerSchool SIS Infinite Campus · Skyward
State reportingSEA data collections Part B child-count extracts
Agent
IEP timeline tracking
Reads the file Runs the clocks Holds for review
Assessment and servicesEvaluation report stores Related-service scheduling
A district-level field-completeness figure can read sound while a single timeline type holds most of the missed clocks and empty fields. Nestack reports the miss rate by timeline type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Initial evaluation clocks
6.4%
3.4×
Review
Transfers in from another state
4.5%
2.4×
Review
Re-evaluation due dates
3.5%
1.8×
Watch
Routine annual reviews
2.1%
1.1×
Normal
Bar: miss-rate lift vs. the routine-annual-review baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A missed clock ends as a test
A cycle is done when the missed timeline has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next file checked is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Miss rate rises in one timeline type.
02Diagnose
The evaluation that started on the day the form was signed, not the day consent arrived, is read back through the case file until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
Any change goes out with a number, and the timelines that caused it attached.
04Verify
One timeline case still failing is enough to hold the release.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the compliance 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, timeline workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Timeline workflow discovery and refusal boundary.
02SIS and case-management system.
03State timeline, unit and exclusion-rule mapping.
04Consent-date ingestion and normalisation.
05Clock arithmetic and roster checks.
06Confidence scoring and finding routing.
07Case-manager review workflow.
08Case-management and SIS integration.
09Timeline and composition cases.
10Guardrails and refusal controls.
11Timeline-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 state, one districtProductionProduction case-management systemsAdvancedMultiple states / districts
Introduced at Pilot
Clocks in your state's unit✓✓✓
Case-manager review✓✓✓
Field-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by timeline type—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved date write-back—✓✓
Case-management integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-state unit and exclusion rules——✓
Multi-stage compliance review——✓
High case-file volume——✓
Multi-state timeline controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, case-file 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 case files and where consent dates live→Consent-date ingestion and clock mappingWeek 1
02Representative files from a past review cycle→Timeline baseline, unit normalisation and rule bindingWeek 2
03Your state rule, its unit and its exclusions→State timeline, unit and exclusion-rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→SIS, case-management and assessment-store review, then integration setupWeek 2
05Files you would not want examined→Team-composition cases and the eval suiteWeek 4
06What no agent may ever write→Confidence scoring, finding routing, guardrails and refusal controlsWeek 3
07Named case managers to review findings→Case-manager 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
Each width follows the weeks that phase truly occupies, which is why two of them share week five.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Timeline workflow discovery, state-rule mapping and the refusal boundaryW2Case-file integration and the clock baselineW3Clock arithmetic, roster checks and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, composition cases and failure-mode testingW5Case-management integration, a pilot cohort and targeted correctionsW6One review cycle run under the case manager, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandBands cover the weeks their work is named in and no more. The doubled fifth week is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Once the timeline record 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 timeline agent around your state's own clocks.
Show us your case files, your state rule and who convenes. Your coordinator already knows which field gets filled in last — we tell her it is empty and stop there. Drafting belongs to our teacher copilot; our tutoring copilot will not move an accommodation.
