Read submitted material and return the working documents a development executive reads from — synopsis, beat breakdown, character and location counts, comps and a consistency pass — the judgement stays with the executive.
Take the submission as filed — the draft, its date, who sent it, and the permission under which it may be read.
02
Read that draft and any treatment, pitch document or underlying work filed with it, keeping version and page numbering.
Reason
03
Draft a synopsis and a beat and structure breakdown, with the page each beat was read off recorded against it.
04
Count speaking parts, scenes, locations, night exteriors, stunts, minors and animals as the pages state them.
05
Line up comparable titles by form, genre and production scale, and say what each comparison was drawn from.
Decide
06
Mark continuity breaks, dropped threads, unnumbered revisions and what the draft contradicts about itself.
07
Send anything about merit, market or the writer to a named development executive rather than answering it.
Out
08
Return the reading documents with no recommendation, no score and no rank against any other submission.
09
Retain the submission's permission record, the documents produced, the executive's notes and who read what.
→Product statement
The agent prepares what a reading is done from. It does not assess the script, rank a writer, or write or rewrite a line of it.
Example workflow
One submission, end to end
AgentHuman
1Submission receivedA spec, a treatment, a pitch document or underlying material, with whatever it arrived under
2Permission checkedWhose material it is, the release or agreement that permits the read, what may be retained, what may be shared, and what may never be used for training
3Reading documents draftedSynopsis, beat and structure breakdown, character and location counts and production-scale notes, each carrying the page it was read off
4Consistency passContinuity breaks, dropped threads, name and timeline contradictions, and revision marks the draft does not carry
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — the permission check, the reading documents and the consistency pass finish before a development executive opens anything.
5DecisionSplits on draft coverage and citation confidence
Draft covered, beats cited
Reaches the development executive ready to read.
Thin coverage or uncited beats
Goes back marked incomplete, not summarised over.
Development executive
The executive judges the draft. The pack is what that reading is done from — it is not literary material, and it carries no recommendation, score or rank.
Accept · Correct · Assign a reader
Accepted — handed back▼
6Pack handed overAttached to the submission record for the executive who will read it, carrying no recommendation and marked as machine-produced wherever it travels
7Outcome reviewedWhat the executive corrected, which beats had no page behind them, and where a count did not survive a second reading
Corrections
Every beat or count an executive re-reads is counted.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Recommending, passing on or ranking a submission.
Scoring a script or a writer.
Predicting audience, box office or performance.
Writing or rewriting any part of the script.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Draft the synopsis and the beat and structure breakdown.
✓Count characters, scenes, locations and production-scale items.
✓Line up comparable titles and say what each was drawn from.
✓Mark continuity breaks and what the draft contradicts.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. The assessment is not one of them.
Reading material submitted without a release.
Sharing a submission beyond the agreed reading.
Retaining or training on a writer's draft.
Deciding what a development slate acquires.
Example output
One submission, annotated
Each document in the pack cites the page in the draft it came from.
Coverage output · single submissionIllustrative example
Submission
Permission
Pages read
Documents
Confidence
Recommendation
Spec feature, first draft
Signed release on file
112 of 112
Synopsis, beats, counts
88%
Left to the executive
As receivedThe draft as it was filed, the permission it arrived under, and how much of it the agent actually read.
Evidence usedPages 14–17, three beatsScene headings, 41Cast list, 9 speaking
Why there is no verdictMerit is an opinion a person holds. The agent assembles what it is formed on.
ActionAcceptCorrectAssign a reader
What the score decidesIt decides how closely the citations are re-checked, not whether the script is any good.
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 submissionFrom agents, managers, festivals and open windows
03Reading documents
Tie each beat to a page
Beats, counts and contradictions arrive with the page they were read off, so an executive can check the pack against the draft.
01Approved path
Put the hour back into the script
Synopsis, beats and counts are drafted before the meeting, so a development executive spends the time on the draft rather than on summarising it.
02Human review
Raise the missing paperwork early
A submission with no release, an unnumbered revision or an underlying work nobody has licensed is named before anyone reads further.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the submission and its permission, the documents produced, the pages behind them, the executive's corrections and who read what — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the reading
Each control wraps the one inside it. A pack clears every layer before a development executive opens it, and the assessment itself sits outside all six.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeReturn coverage to assigned readers if evaluations or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5TraceabilityRecord the submission, the documents produced, the reader and the corrections.Record
L4Retention limitsWhat may be kept, shared or used for training is set per submission.Restrict
L3Verdict gateMerit, ranking and acquisition questions stop for a named executive.Gate
L2Page bindingEach beat, count and contradiction is checked back to a page in the draft.Cite
L1Permission checkA submission is matched to the release or agreement that permits the read.Check
Model coreReading documents proposed — synopsis, beats, counts, comparable titles and citation confidence
L1 – L2Tie the read to a permission and a page
L3Decides who forms the assessment
L4 – L5Keep the material and the trail in bounds
L6Pulls automation back when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate what was read, what was cited and what was left to a person.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the pack a development executive opens
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDoes the synopsis match what the draft actually contains?
E2Step-level evaluationWere beats, counts and contradictions read off the right pages?
E3Tool evaluationDid it open the right draft, revision and submission record?
E4Permission adherenceWas material read, retained and shared only as its release allows?
E5Slice evaluationHow does the reading change across forms, genres and origins?
E6Business outcomeHow much of the pack did an executive have to correct?
Floor — the corrections that pack needed before the meeting
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle. A pack already circulated is corrected and re-issued to everyone sent the first one, with what changed named.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Intake1 mode
SR-01
Read without a release on file
A submission is covered before anyone checks it may be read.
Stage admitsThe draft, its revision and the permission to read it
02 · Reading2 modes
SR-02
Action given to the wrong character
A beat is credited to someone not in the scene.
SR-03
Beat with no page behind it
A plot point reaches the synopsis that the draft never contained.
Stage draftsSynopsis, beats, counts and comparable titles
03 · Consistency1 mode
SR-04
Unfamiliar structure marked as a fault
A non-linear or ensemble draft is read as broken continuity.
Stage marksContradictions, dropped threads and revision gaps
04 · Handover2 modes
SR-05
Summary drifts into a verdict
Wording in the pack reads as a recommendation to pass or pursue.
SR-06
Comps drawn from what got made
Comparable titles narrow to films the model has seen succeed.
Stage returnsThe pack a development executive reads from
05 · Change / Version1 mode
SR-07
Silent citation regression
A template change drops the page behind each beat unnoticed.
Stage tracksModel, prompt, template and retention-rule changes
Sev-1 · material or judgement leaves the boundarySev-2 · a wrong reading reaches the deskSev-3 · the reading narrows and is re-read
Drafts that do not sit in a familiar three-act shape, work translated into English and writers with nothing produced behind them carry most of what an executive rewrites. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Non-linear and ensemble structures
4.7%
2.6×
Review
First-time and unrepresented writers
3.9%
2.2×
Review
Translated and non-English drafts
3.4%
1.9×
Watch
Standard three-act features
1.3%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: executive-correction rate lift vs. standard three-act features · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Coverage outlives the meeting it was written for
A pack written for one reading is opened months later by someone who never saw the draft. A beat that was wrong then is still wrong.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Executive corrections, uncited beats or a re-read cluster in one kind of draft.
02Diagnose
Traced to the intake, the pages read, a beat citation, the comps rule or the template.
03Improve
The template, comps rule or citation requirement is changed with your development lead, and version-linked.
04Verify
Re-run against held-out submissions, including the packs an executive rewrote.
05Learn
The rewritten pack is kept beside the draft it misread, and the page rule enters the coverage template.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Every cycle re-reads drafts of the kind the last one got wrong, against the template as it now stands.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, submission intake and permissions, reading templates, evaluation, development review, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Submission intake and permission-record mapping.
03Retention, sharing and training controls.
04Draft, revision and version handling.
05Synopsis and beat-breakdown templates.
06Character, scene and location counting.
07Production-scale and comparable-title rules.
08Consistency and contradiction checks.
09Verdict, ranking and rewrite refusals.
10Development review and sign-off record.
11Evaluation suite, slices and regression drafts.
12Observability, deployment 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 submission type, one teamProductionProduction submission-system integrationAdvancedMultiple slates and territories
Introduced at Pilot
Synopsis, beat and structure breakdown✓✓✓
Character, scene and location counts✓✓✓
Beat-level page citations✓✓✓
Consistency and contradiction pass✓✓✓
Permission and confidentiality controls✓✓✓
Development-executive sign-off✓✓✓
Comparable titles and production-scale notes✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Submission-system and script-store integration—✓✓
Observability and slice evaluation—✓✓
Non-English drafts and multi-slate volume—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Underlying works and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on submission volume and formats, the document set behind each submission, permission and retention requirements, development-system integrations, 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 submission log and the releases behind it→Submission intake and permission-record mappingWeek 1
02The retention and sharing rules business affairs set→Retention, sharing and training controlsWeek 2
03Sample drafts, revisions and the coverage you write today→Draft handling and synopsis and beat-breakdown templatesWeek 2
04What your counts and production-scale notes must contain→Character, scene and location countingWeek 3
05The comparable titles your team actually reaches for→Production-scale and comparable-title rulesWeek 3
06Packs that went wrong, and the drafts they misread→Evaluation suite, slices and regression draftsWeek 5
07Named development executives and your assigned readers→Development review workflow, then packs under sign-offWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries the first packs a development executive works from.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Submission types, permissions and who forms the assessmentW2Intake, retention rules and draft and revision handlingW3Synopsis, beat breakdown, counts and comparable-title rulesW4Consistency checks, refusals, evaluation suite and slicesW5Submission-system wiring, then packs an executive readsW6Live submissions under development review, then Agent Care
Reading the bandDraft and revision handling lands in week 2, before any beat is cited in week 3. The bars show that dependency, not a smooth ramp.
At the end of W6Named development executives have worked from live packs, with the page each beat was read off recorded against it and the verdict left where it belongs, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Media AI agent
Build a coverage agent around your submissions and the executives who read them.
Show us how submissions reach you, the releases and retention rules behind them, and the coverage your team writes today. We'll read a draft you have already covered and show you what it cited to a page, what it got wrong, and everything it refused to say about the writer.
