A speechwriter is not the maker of the speech, and the person who delivers it takes the blame, so the agent drafts the post and proves the principal adopted it.
A post is written for a named individual, and the words become theirs the moment the name goes on.
02
A speechwriter drafts, and under Janus the speaker keeps ultimate authority over the content.
Reason
03
The drafter never makes the statement, and Lorenzo still reaches whoever pushed it out.
04
A machine composed the text, so Art. 50(4) asks who holds editorial responsibility for it.
05
One clause carries non-public commercial substance, and a personal account is no official source.
Decide
06
A product the company sells is praised, and 16 CFR 255.5 asks after the connection behind it.
07
An op-ed argues a legislative outcome, and the deduction goes even though registration does not.
Out
08
Nothing on offer can show whether a machine wrote it, and that absence is recorded as the finding.
09
Execute write actions only where the approval boundaries set at implementation allow it.
→Product statement
Drafting, recording and holding belong to the agent. Adoption belongs to a named principal, who puts their own name over the sentences and answers for them personally.
Example workflow
One post, brief to byline
AgentHuman
1Brief and corpus receivedThe brief, the pieces already published under that name, the sources and any policy ask it carries
2Principal and channel fixedWhich named individual the words are attributed to, and which channel of theirs will carry them
3Draft raised under that nameThe text, the claims inside it, the third parties it names and the disclosure it needs
4Screens appliedMateriality screens, connection checks, named-party sourcing and drafting confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no name goes over anything at any of them — the agent is drafting, and the principal lane opens at the adoption gate.
5DecisionSplits at the adoption gate
Clean against the fixed channel
Goes to the named principal to adopt.
Anything material
Takes a disclosure-counsel read first.
Principal review
The draft is held with what it was built from, what it asserts and who it names.
Adopt · Append source · Send for legal review
Adopted — by the named principal▼
6Channel and record systems updatedOnly where the write access and records policy reach that channel
7Publication evaluatedAdoption evidence, edit depth, principal corrections and what counsel review found
Principal corrections
Each edit the principal makes is scored in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Putting a name over a sentence.
Deciding a personal post carries nothing material.
Judging whether a claim is safe to attribute.
Holding editorial responsibility for a publication.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Draft the piece and mark the claims inside it.
✓Flag each named third party and the source under it.
✓Hold the exact text the principal was shown, hashed and dated.
✓Record what the principal changed and what they declined to sign.
No name goes over a sentence except by the named principal, inside the agreed boundaries.
Deciding a characterisation of a person is fair.
Telling a board the voice is genuinely theirs.
Choosing what a founder argues for in public.
Changes to the byline, the text or the record.
Example output
One executive post, annotated
This serves a communications team writing under a named individual whose own name carries the exposure; below is one post exactly as the agent leaves it.
Executive post · personal channelIllustrative example
Post
Recorded as
Channel
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
Personal post, one named principal
Drafted against the brief
Personal channel, not official
Brief and sources, 7 August 2026
Held unsigned
The named principal, in person
As receivedBuilt from the brief and the source material named under it, and it asserts nothing the principal has not read.
What the adoption record holdsBrief on fileNamed-party sourcesPrior signed pieces
Why no byline herePutting a name over a sentence is a thing only that person does.
ActionAdoptAppend sourceSend for legal review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold a draft gets a counsel read before the principal 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 post draftedUnder the name that carries it
03Evidence
Where that evidence lands
The agent does not vouch for a voice, only for what the principal was shown, when they were shown it, and what they changed before the name went on.
01Approved path
Their name, our sentences
Janus makes the signer the maker, and Art. 50(4) lets that same signature stand in place of a label, so one act creates the liability and discharges the duty at once.
02Human review
Looked for, and not found
No published measure was located for reproducing a named individual's voice, and no accepted protocol for testing one, while the detector literature runs the other way — the vendor of the best-known classifier withdrew it for low accuracy — so the claim is left unmade here.
04Build an evidence trail
The draft, the review it received and the individual whose name it carries stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Executive channelsLinkedIn · X · personal blogs Pieces published under that name
Brief and source materialComms briefs · fact packs What a piece is allowed to say
Approval and identity systemsSSO · signing keys · approval logs Who adopted which text, and when
Agent
Executive comms drafting
Reads the corpus Drafts under the name Holds for the principal
Disclosure and legal recordsInsider lists · disclosure counsel Material that is not public yet
A byline-level correction figure can read clean while policy and advocacy pieces carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by piece type, not by the principal alone.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Policy and advocacy pieces
6.6%
3.7×
Review
Personal-channel posts
4.7%
2.6×
Review
Pieces naming third parties
2.9%
1.6×
Watch
Standing internal notes
1.4%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. internal-note baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an unread signature costs
A cycle shuts when the sentence the named individual never read is a standing case. That suite is what the next byline taken is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on policy and advocacy pieces.
02Diagnose
The post adopted in seconds on a phone, at a length nobody could have read in the time, is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Posts ship numbered, and the reviews behind them travel attached.
04Verify
Each touched review case is run again, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
The case is kept, and the byline rules are amended in that same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next byline is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope set against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, corpus, drafting logic, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Editorial-responsibility and automation-boundary work.
02Corpus, brief and channel sources.
03Draft-to-principal and byline-clearance trail mapping.
04Corpus ingestion.
05Principal, channel and claim binding.
06Materiality screening and routing.
07Principal adoption workflow.
08Channel and record integration.
09Review and attribution cases.
10Guardrails and attribution controls.
11Byline-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 principal, one cycleProductionProduction publishing workflowAdvancedMultiple principals / channels
Introduced at Pilot
Drafting to your byline rules✓✓✓
Named principal adoption✓✓✓
Voice-and-record baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by channel class—✓✓
Legal review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved channel write-back—✓✓
Drafting-and-channel integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-principal voice work——✓
Cross-channel piece packs——✓
Dense publishing calendars——✓
Multi-principal review controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, publishing 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 named principals and the channels each one publishes on→Voice capture and byline versioningWeek 1
02Representative briefs, past pieces and source material→Corpus binding, drafting logic and the voice baselineWeek 2
03Your publishing calendar and the principals it names→Byline mapping, corpus binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to the relevant channels, feeds or exports→Corpus, channel and approval-system assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Sentences you would not want attributed→Attribution cases and the evaluation roundWeek 4
06What no byline may cover→Materiality screening, review routing, guardrails and adoption controlsWeek 3
07A named principal who adopts the words→Release to the named principal, 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 is exactly as wide as its phase costs here, so week five carries two where one would look tidier.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Byline discovery, voice versioning and the automation boundaryW2Corpus and channel integration, and the voice-and-record baselineW3Drafting logic, materiality screening and adoption controlsW4Evaluation suite, attribution cases and failure-mode testingW5Channel and record integration, pilot drafts and targeted correctionsW6One publishing cycle run under the named principal, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach band runs only across the weeks its own work is named for, and week five is shared by design.
At the end of W6Once the review record validates, Agent Care adopts the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Executive comms agent
Build an executive drafting agent around the signature your last post never actually recorded.
Show us one post that went out under a leader's name last quarter and the record of what they read before it did. If the file holds a click and a timestamp and no more, the byline is doing work the record cannot support. A signature nobody can evidence comes back as a finding.
