Watch what strangers say without pretending it is not surveillance: date the first ingestion, screen what arrived unasked, and leave the notification call to a named assessor.
A post is ingested, and the day it was obtained is written down before a score is put on it.
02
An account is named, and the Article 14(3)(a) clock starts on that day, not at launch.
Reason
03
A mention reveals a faith or a union, and it leaves the general store for a screened one.
04
A person objects under Article 21(1), and watching that account stops until a signature lands.
05
A retention term runs down, and the post leaves the corpus rather than renewing on later activity.
Decide
06
A query reaches into a closed group, and it is refused at the edge of the public web.
07
Nothing is found for a term, and that is logged as an absence of posts, not of feeling.
Out
08
A sentiment score is issued, and the annotator agreement behind it travels in the same row.
09
Collect only inside the platform and territorial boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Collection, screening and the record belong to the agent. The Article 14 determination belongs to a named assessor, who signs it inside the assessment, dates it and carries it afterwards.
Example workflow
One mention, ingestion to determination
AgentHuman
1Mention retrievedPublic timelines, forums, review boards, contracted feeds or the profile page itself
2Lawful basis recordedThe balancing note, the purpose it serves, the day of first ingestion and the term set against it
3Screened for special categoryThe post, what it reveals unasked, and whether that can be separated at collection
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nobody outside is told at any of them — that invisibility is what makes the assessment compulsory, and the assessor lane opens at the notification gate.
5DecisionSplits at the notification gate
An ordinary brand mention
Goes into the numbered listening report.
Anything naming a person
Reaches the data protection officer first.
Assessor review
The mention is held with its basis, its screening result and the day it was obtained.
Notify · Rely on the exception · Refer to counsel
Determined — by the named assessor▼
6Processing record and assessment updatedOnly where write access and the retention policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedBasis accuracy, screening accuracy, assessor corrections and what the review found
Corrections logged
Each assessor correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Ruling that notification is disproportionate.
Overriding an objection under Article 21(1).
Agreeing what a lawful basis actually covers.
Signing the assessment a regulator reads first.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Date the first ingestion and hold that date on file.
✓Screen each post for what it reveals without asking.
✓Drop a mention once the retention term set against it has expired.
✓Halt collection on an account the moment an objection is filed.
Nothing is collected except under a basis a named assessor has signed and dated.
Judging whether a purpose is compelling enough.
Telling a board the corpus was lawfully held.
Choosing which platforms may be watched at all.
Changes to retention terms or collection scope.
Example output
One mention, annotated
This serves a comms team who may have to show, years later, why a stranger was watched and under what basis — the ground the CNIL covered in deliberation SAN-2024-020 of 5 December 2024, closed on 4 March 2026 once the database had been deleted.
Mention record · single postIllustrative example
Account
Post
Screening
Basis of record
Confidence
Held for
Public forum, a named individual
Service complaint, open thread
Nothing special-category
Legitimate interests, 3 August 2026
Held undetermined
The named assessor, by name
As receivedTaken from one open thread and the account that wrote it, and it claims nothing about the person.
What the mention record holdsBasis in forceIngestion dateRetention term
Why no determination hereNotifying a stranger is a call the named assessor has to make.
ActionNotifyRely on the exceptionRefer to counsel
What the score decidesBelow the configured confidence the mention gets a senior read before the assessor 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 mention keptFrom the person who wrote it
03Basis
How long the post may stay
The agent does not weigh whether a post is fair or true; public availability is one factor inside the balancing note, and never a basis on its own.
01Approved path
They were not talking to you
Since 5 February 2026 the UK exception sits in Article 14(5)(e) to (f), with substitute notice made express and mandatory. The EU wording was narrowed instead.
02Human review
What was looked for, and never found
No register, no permit, no form and no regulator portal was found for social listening in the EU, the UK or the US. The vetted-researcher route under DSA Article 40 is barred to a brand by its own commercial interest, so what is left is Article 36 prior consultation.
04Build an evidence trail
The mention, the account behind it and the analyst who kept it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Open platform interfacesPublic endpoints · timelines The posts inside a sampled window
Forums and review boardsBoards · threads · comments Named accounts and post dates
Contracted data providersFirehose resellers · data brokers Bought coverage and its own limits
Agent
Social listening and basis control
Reads the mentions Screens the post Holds for the assessor
Privacy and records systemsProcessing records · assessments Objections, erasures and the dates
A corpus-level basis figure can read clean while posts written across two languages take most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by platform class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Code-mixed and non-English posts
11.3%
3.7×
Review
Posts naming an individual
8.0%
2.6×
Review
Ironic or figurative mentions
5.0%
1.6×
Watch
Verified corporate accounts
2.2%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. verified-account baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a renewed term costs
A cycle ends when the post kept past its stated purpose is a standing case. That suite is what the next collection window is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on posts written across two languages.
02Diagnose
The account that was lawfully watched last quarter and is not lawfully watched now is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
The report goes out numbered, and the mentions beneath it ride with it.
04Verify
One retention case still failing is enough to hold the report back.
05Learn
It is kept for good, and the collection rules are amended in the same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Each cycle leaves the suite one case longer than it found it.
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, collection control, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Lawful-basis mapping and automation-boundary scope.
02Platform, forum and provider sources.
03Account-attribution and retention-term rule mapping.
04Mention ingestion.
05Account, basis and term binding.
06Article 9 screening and objection routing.
07Assessor determination workflow.
08Privacy-record integration.
09Basis and retention cases.
10Guardrails and collection controls.
11Mention-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 windowProductionProduction listening workflowAdvancedMultiple platforms / languages
Introduced at Pilot
Mention collection to your basis✓✓✓
Named assessor determination✓✓✓
Collection-scope baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by platform class—✓✓
Assessor review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved privacy write-back—✓✓
Listener-and-store integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-basis reconciliation——✓
Cross-platform mention packs——✓
Large mention archives——✓
Multi-platform collection controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, platform coverage, retention 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 platforms and the basis each is watched under→Basis capture and retention trackingWeek 1
02Representative platform, forum and provider sources→Source binding, screening rules and the collection baselineWeek 2
03Your privacy calendar and the assessors it names→Basis mapping, retention terms and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant platform interfaces or exports→Platform, forum and provider source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Records you would not want subject-accessed→Retention cases and the evaluation roundWeek 4
06What no listener may retain→Objection routing, assessor holds, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named assessor who signs the determination→Release to the named assessor, 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
These bands are measured, not evened out; week five carries two because the two genuinely overlap.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Basis discovery, retention terms and the automation boundaryW2Platform integration and the collection-scope baselineW3Article 9 screening, objection routing and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, retention cases and failure-mode testingW5Privacy-record integration, pilot reports and targeted correctionsW6One listening window run under the data owner, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA band here covers the weeks its own work is named in, and week five genuinely doubles.
At the end of W6When the collection record validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Listening AI agent
Build a social listening agent around the basis your last mention report never recorded.
Show us one listening query and the day it first ran. If nobody can name the basis it runs under, a one-month clock has been running unattended since that day. The case people cite for scraping public profiles ended with the scraper paying and destroying its data.
