Catch a planned change while it is still planned, screen it against the accreditor's own categories, build the evidence pack and run the dates — and never classify, notify or certify.
2Evidence gatheredThe implementation date from the operational system, the contract, the catalogue and the ECAR row
3Screening row assembledCategory tested against, evidence held, dates in play and confidence
4Controls appliedCategory-coverage checks, date checks, evidence completeness and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and none of them classifies the change or files anything — the agent is assembling, and the liaison lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the accreditation liaison.
Low confidence
Adds a counsel read first.
Liaison review
The row is held with its evidence, the category it was tested against and the confidence.
Review · Correct · Send to counsel
Reviewed — the pack goes to the submitter▼
6Change register and inventory updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedScreening coverage, row corrections, submission timeliness and findings at review
Corrections
Every liaison correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Classifying a change as substantive, or as not substantive.
Submitting to the accreditor — two named roles only.
Notifying or certifying anything to the Department.
Deciding whether a leased suite is a location or a branch.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Hold a row per detected change, with the category it was tested against.
✓Run the accreditor dates and the federal clocks on one row.
✓Reconcile the location and programme inventory against the ECAR.
✓Show what the pack is still missing, and hold it for a named submitter.
Wrong after the fact means students already enrolled and money already moved at that address.
Deciding what evidence is sufficient for a prospectus.
State licensure certification to the Department — our licensure agent.
Records requests, amendments and holds — our enrollment and records agent.
Changes to screening, date or submission-control configuration.
Example output
One detected change, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the system it came from.
Screening-register output · single changeIllustrative example
Change
Evidence line
Days to report
Rule applied
Confidence
Screening status
Certificate, leased site
A lease was executed for a suite where a partner will teach most of a certificate
Day 6 of 10
34 CFR 600.21
88%
Unscreened — no category recorded
As receivedTaken from the executed lease and the room scheduler — nothing on this side is the agent's.
Why this flagHow much of it the partner teaches is the question; the liaison decides what it means.
ActionReviewCorrectSend to counsel
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the row picks up a counsel read before the liaison 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
Every detected changeFrom the systems the change happens in
03Screening
Screen against the accreditor
Draw on the accreditor's own published categories, the executed contract, the catalogue and the ECAR. 34 CFR 602.22 binds the accreditor to hold such a policy; the duty an institution owes runs from that policy. A departmental rulemaking on that section is open, and nothing in it is in force.
01Approved path
Approval is never backdated
Routine screening rows and date arithmetic arrive already done, keyed on the implementation date.
02Human review
Point people at the changes nobody screened
One accreditor runs fixed dates, another runs submission cycles with fees, another publishes no advance deadline and says it cannot approve retroactively — so each body's calendar is data the product refreshes, not copy. The one national rule sits elsewhere: under 34 CFR 600.20(f)(5) the institution is liable for all Title IV funds disbursed to students enrolled at a location or programme it never applied for.
04Build an evidence trail
The change, the classification it drew and the officer who submitted stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Student and academic systemsBanner · Colleague Workday Student · Jenzabar
Curriculum and catalogueCourseLeaf CIM · Acalog Coursedog · Kuali
Contracts and real estateLease and partner agreements Contract-management systems
Agent
Accreditation substantive change
Detects the change Assembles the pack Holds for the submitter
Federal and accreditor recordsECAR · eligibility record Accreditor submission portals
An institution-level classification-coverage figure can read sound while a few change types carry most of the events that reached a deadline unscreened. Nestack reports the unscreened rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Leased sites and partner space
6.7%
3.6×
Review
Partner-delivered programmes
4.9%
2.6×
Review
Programmes inside an existing CIP
3.1%
1.7×
Watch
New degrees through committee
1.4%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: unscreened-rate lift vs. the committee-degree baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A late notification ends as a test
A cycle closes when the late notification is a regression case. That suite is what the next change tracked is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Screening coverage falls in one change type.
02Diagnose
The site that opened in September and was notified in March is read back through the register until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
The change goes out with a number, and the sites behind it travel with it.
04Verify
Nothing submits while one touched change case is still red.
05Learn
It is kept for good, and the classification rules move in the same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next change tracked is checked 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, screening workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Submission workflow discovery and the boundary.
02Contract and catalogue source assessment.
03Accreditor category and submission-date mapping.
04Change detection and event ingestion.
05Screening rows and evidence binding.
06Confidence scoring and flag routing.
07Liaison review workflow.
08Programme-inventory and ECAR integration.
09Classification and date cases.
10Guardrails and submission controls.
11Change-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 accreditor, one campusProductionProduction source systemsAdvancedMultiple accreditors / campuses
Introduced at Pilot
Rows and dates against your policy✓✓✓
Liaison review✓✓✓
Classification-coverage baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by accreditor—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved register write-back—✓✓
Programme-inventory integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Complex multi-accreditor policy sets——✓
Multi-stage liaison review——✓
High change volume——✓
Multi-accreditor submission controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, change 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 accreditor's policy and category list→Change detection and event ingestion, with evidence bindingWeek 1
02Representative changes from a past cycle→Classification-coverage baseline, screening capture and row keyingWeek 2
03Your sources for leases, curriculum and scheduling→Accreditor category and submission-date mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Contract, catalogue and scheduler review, then integration setupWeek 2
05Locations you would not want unapproved→Date cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no notification may leave late→Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and submission controlsWeek 3
07The chief executive and the accreditation liaison→Liaison 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
Nothing here is sized to the page; elapsed weeks decide, and the fifth carries two of the bands.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Submission workflow discovery, category mapping and the boundaryW2Source integration and the classification-coverage baselineW3Screening rows, date arithmetic and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, date cases and failure-mode testingW5Inventory integration, a pilot change set and targeted correctionsW6One submission cycle run under the accreditation liaison, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar covers only the weeks its own work is named in. The fifth-week doubling is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Validation closes on live changes, and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Education AI agent
Build a substantive-change agent around the two roles who may submit.
A register is worth building before the next change is planned, not after a reviewer finds it. Bring us your accreditor's category list, the systems your changes actually happen in and the two people who may file.
