Draft the public reply, name the record behind each factual assertion it makes about the reviewer, keep the regulated detail out of it, and leave the sending to a named officer.
A review lands, and the reply drafted for it is held to what a named record will support.
02
A lookup returns nothing, and the silence is filed as an absence, never as proof of a fact.
Reason
03
A draft names a service fact, and the clearance to disclose it is filed before the draft moves.
04
A review alleges harm, and it leaves the reply queue for the desk that owns that duty.
05
A draft accuses the reviewer, and 16 CFR 465.7(a) asks what was known when it went out.
Decide
06
A reply is published, and it is reconciled afterwards against what the platform still shows.
07
A platform takes a reply down, and the removal is logged, because nothing compels it back.
Out
08
A review cannot be answered without asserting a fact, and that is recorded as the finding.
09
Publish a reply only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Drafting, the basis record and the hold belong to the agent. The reply belongs to a named officer, who signs the basis under it and carries it afterwards.
Example workflow
One reply, review to signature
AgentHuman
1Review receivedPublic platform pages, review feeds, in-app ratings or a syndicated partner site
2Assertions separated outThe sentences that assert a fact about the reviewer, and the sentences that assert nothing
3Basis attached per assertionThe system, the record identifier, the field and the moment that field was read
4Controls appliedDisclosure checks, assertion checks, escalation checks and drafting confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is published at any of them — the agent is drafting, and the officer lane opens at the assertion gate.
5DecisionSplits at the assertion gate
Acknowledgement only
Goes to the named officer to sign.
Anything asserting a fact
Adds the privacy official first.
Officer review
The draft is held with the review, the basis for each assertion and the disclosure clearance.
Sign · Strip the assertion · Send to privacy review
Signed — by the named officer▼
6Reply log and disclosure register updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedAssertion accuracy, disclosure clearance, officer corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each redaction the officer makes counts in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Signing the basis behind a factual assertion.
Deciding a reviewer was never a customer.
Clearing a regulated fact for publication.
Publishing a reply that carries a name.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Draft the reply and name the record under each fact.
✓Attach the system, the identifier and the read time to an assertion.
✓Hold any reply asserting a fact until its basis line is complete.
✓Reconcile replies sent against replies still live.
Nothing is published except by a named officer, inside the agreed approval boundaries.
Judging whether an accusation is founded.
Telling a board the reply record is clean.
Choosing which reviews get a human reply.
Changes to disclosure or assertion rules.
Example output
One reply, annotated
This serves a comms team who may have to show, years later, what a reply asserted and on what basis — the ground OCR covered against Manasa Health Center, LLC, on a resolution agreement effective 28 March 2023.
Reply record · single itemIllustrative example
Platform
Review
Assertion
Basis of record
Confidence
Held for
Public review page, named account
Two-star review, service complaint
No assertion about the person
Ticket record, 3 August 2026
Held unsigned
The named officer, by name
As receivedDrawn from the review itself and one named ticket record, and it asserts nothing past those two.
What this record holdsBasis per assertionDisclosure clearanceEscalation check
Why no signature hereStanding behind an accusation is a judgement a named officer makes.
ActionSignStrip the assertionSend to privacy review
What the score decidesBelow the configured confidence the draft gets a senior read before the officer 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
Any reply publishedAgainst the review it answers
03Basis
What the reply may assert
The agent cannot know whether an accusation is true; it records what was read, when it was read, and which sentence in the draft rests on it.
01Approved path
What the reply gave away
16 CFR 465.7(a) is the one provision in Part 465 aimed at what a business says back, and it turns on knowledge or reckless disregard — a state of mind.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No verified instrument compels a platform to take a review down: P2B Article 4 reaches restriction of the business user listing, not moderation of a review of it. Removal is a request granted at the discretion of the platform, which is why the reply carries the whole load.
04Build an evidence trail
The reply, the review it answers and the person who published it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Public review platformsReview pages · public ratings feeds The review text as posted
Customer service recordsCRM · ticketing · order history What the basis line names
Regulated record systemsClinical · financial · student files Read for clearance, never quoted
Agent
Review response and basis control
Reads the review Drafts the reply Holds for the officer
Comms and privacy recordsReply log · disclosure register Two signatories and the timestamps
An account-level clearance figure can read clean while the replies that name a service fact take most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by reply class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Replies naming a service fact
8.1%
3.7×
Review
Reviews alleging harm or breach
5.7%
2.6×
Review
Lower-resource language replies
3.6%
1.6×
Watch
Acknowledgement-only replies
1.9%
0.9×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. acknowledgement-only baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a disclosing reply costs
The loop shuts when the reply that said more than the reviewer did is a standing case. That suite is what the next reply is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on replies that name a service fact.
02Diagnose
The reply that read as the best draft of the week, because it was specific, is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Every reply goes out numbered, with the review that prompted it attached.
04Verify
Nothing publishes while one touched disclosure case is red.
05Learn
The case stays on, and the reply rules are rewritten alongside it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next reply 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, assertion control, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Assertion rules and automation-boundary definition.
02Review, service and regulated sources.
03Assertion-to-basis and disclosure-clearance mapping.
04Review ingestion.
05Review, account and record binding.
06Assertion scoring and privacy routing.
07Officer signature workflow.
08Comms-record integration.
09Disclosure and accusation cases.
10Guardrails and reply controls.
11Reply-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 platform set, one cycleProductionProduction comms workflowAdvancedMultiple platforms / languages
Introduced at Pilot
Reply drafting to your clearance rules✓✓✓
Named officer signature✓✓✓
Platform-inventory baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by review class—✓✓
Officer review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved reply write-back—✓✓
Platform-and-desk integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-sector clearance rules——✓
Cross-platform reply packs——✓
Large review queues——✓
Multi-platform reply controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, review volume, disclosure 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 platform accounts and who answers on each→Assertion capture and basis recordingWeek 1
02Representative review, service and record sources→Source binding, clearance rules and the reply baselineWeek 2
03Your escalation map and the officers it names→Disclosure mapping, assertion rules and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant platform APIs, feeds or exports→Review, service and record source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Replies you would not want subpoenaed→Accusation cases and the evaluation roundWeek 4
06What no reply may assert→Privacy routing, officer holds, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named officer who signs the basis→Privacy-official sign-off, 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
Widths here track cost and not the grid, which is why the fifth week draws one band beneath another.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Disclosure discovery, assertion rules and the automation boundaryW2Platform integration and the reply-record baselineW3Reply drafting, privacy routing and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, disclosure cases and failure-mode testingW5Comms-record integration, pilot replies and targeted correctionsW6One reply cycle run under the reputation owner, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar spans only the weeks its own work is named for, and week five carries two by design.
At the end of W6Once the reply record validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · PR AI agent
Build a review response agent around the basis your last reply never wrote down.
Show us one month of replies and the record behind each fact they assert about a reviewer. Where a reply says a person was never a customer, ask which record establishes that. 16 CFR 465.7(a) does not ask whether the sentence was wrong. It asks what you knew.
