Own the household application, the direct-certification match and the counts behind the claim, while the student record, the operative notice and the wellbeing referral stay on their own pages and a named official signs.
A meal is served and counted at the point of service, and it enters the record with its site and its day.
02
A claim month closes, and the daily counts are read against eligible enrolment times the attendance factor.
Reason
03
A site drifts past its expected count, and the exception is raised with the day, the meal type and the register.
04
A cleared exception carries no reason, so it stays open — an unexplained clearance is worse evidence than none.
05
A direct-certification match arrives and sets the meal benefit only — never an input to anything else about the child.
Decide
06
A verification sample falls due, and each lawful method is computed so the difference between them is visible.
07
A household does not reply, and the chase runs in the languages the district serves, with each attempt dated.
Out
08
A claim pack is assembled — counts by site and day, edit checks and exception resolutions — held for the official.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the claim; the school food authority official signs it and is responsible for reviewing and analysing the meal counts.
Example workflow
One claim month, service to signature
AgentHuman
1Meals counted at servicePoint-of-service counts by site, by day and by meal type
2Eligibility assembledApplications, direct-certification matches and the documents behind each determination
3Claim pack assembledCounts by site and day, edit-check results, open exceptions and confidence
4Controls appliedEdit checks against attendance-adjusted enrolment, carry-over expiry, site rules and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and none of them determines or signs anything — the agent is assembling, and the official lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the food authority official.
Low confidence
Adds a business-office read first.
Official review
The pack is held with its counts, its unresolved exceptions and the confidence.
Review · Correct · Send to the business office
Reviewed — the official signs▼
6Claim record updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedEdit-check coverage, exception resolution, chase outcomes and findings raised in review
Corrections
Every correction the official makes is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Signing or submitting the Claim for Reimbursement.
Approving or denying a household application.
Terminating benefits, or closing out a household that did not reply.
Choosing which verification sample the district will draw.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Assemble counts by site and by day into the monthly claim pack.
✓Run the edit check against attendance-adjusted eligible enrolment.
✓Compute each lawful sample and show whom each one would put at risk.
✓Chase non-responding households on a dated trail, and hold the file for a person.
Wrong after the claim is signed: the meals are eaten, and fiscal action reaches back to recover.
Issuing the advance notice that precedes a reduction or termination.
Confirming a sampled application, which a second individual must do.
Judging an application questionable and verifying it for cause.
Changes to edit-check, sampling or claim-control configuration.
Example output
One claim month, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the count or the document it came from.
Claim-pack output · single claim monthIllustrative example
Site
Logged finding
Edit-check result
Rule applied
Confidence
Claim status
Elementary site
Counts ran above the attendance-adjusted expectation and each flag was cleared with no reason
Exception open
7 CFR 210.8
91%
Unsigned — exception unresolved
As receivedTaken from the point-of-service counts and the eligibility file — the student record stays with our enrolment and records agent, and this same count is certified again for E-Rate under 47 CFR 54.505.
Record usedPoint-of-service countAttendance factorEligible enrolment
Why this flagThe edit check is what makes the count claimable, and a flag cleared with no reason is the weaker record.
ActionReviewCorrectSend to the business office
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the pack picks up a business-office read before the official 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 claim monthFrom the point of service
03Assembly
Assemble against the edit check
Draw on the counts by site and by day, the eligibility file and the attendance factor the district sets. The Food and Nutrition Service became the Food and Nutrition Administration on 1 June 2026; the desk that receives the claim and runs the review is still your state agency.
01Approved path
The record outlives its keeping
Routine count reconciliation and pack assembly arrive already done.
02Human review
Point people at what a reviewer will reach for
Unresolved exceptions, expiring carry-over and an undated chase are marked. A verification request, an approval or denial and an advance notice of reduction are legally operative, and each is held for a person, as on our parent-communication agent.
04Build an evidence trail
The count, the site record under it and the official who signed stay on the claim.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A district-level edit-check figure can read clean while one type of site holds most of the unresolved exceptions. Nestack reports the exception rate by site type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
High-mobility elementary sites
7.8%
3.6×
Review
Shared-kitchen satellite sites
5.6%
2.6×
Review
CEP sites mid-cycle
3.3%
1.5×
Watch
Established single-kitchen sites
1.3%
0.6×
Normal
Bar: exception-rate lift vs. the established-single-kitchen baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A cleared flag ends as a test
A cycle closes when the failed edit check is a regression case. That suite is what the next claim assembled is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Exception rate rises in one site type.
02Diagnose
The site whose meal count was right every day and provable for three years is read back through the edit checks until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
The fix carries a number, and the serving sites that forced it come with it.
04Verify
Nothing goes out until every touched site case has passed again.
05Learn
It is kept permanently, and the edit rules are amended alongside it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next month is assembled 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, claim workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Claim-month workflow discovery and refusal boundary.
02Point-of-service and eligibility sources.
03Edit-check, carry-over and sampling rule mapping.
04Count and eligibility ingestion.
05Edit-check logic and count binding.
06Confidence scoring and finding routing.
07Food authority official review workflow.
08Point-of-service and portal integration.
09Edit-check and verification cases.
10Guardrails and claim controls.
11Claim-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 district, one claim monthProductionProduction claim and POS systemsAdvancedMultiple districts / site types
Introduced at Pilot
Claim assembly to your site rules✓✓✓
Food authority official review✓✓✓
Edit-check baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by site—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved claim write-back—✓✓
Point-of-service integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-state claim rules——✓
Multi-stage district approvals——✓
High site count——✓
Multi-site claim controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, site count, 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 sites, your registers and how counts arrive→Count and eligibility ingestion, and site bindingWeek 1
02Representative claim months from a past year→Edit-check baseline, count normalisation and rule bindingWeek 2
03Your attendance factor and site-level rules→Edit-check, carry-over and sampling rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Point-of-service, eligibility and portal review, then integration setupWeek 2
05Claims you would not want reviewed→Sample cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no signed claim may estimate→Confidence scoring, finding routing, guardrails and claim controlsWeek 3
07The named official who signs the claim→Official 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
The plan is drawn from the weeks the job truly needs, so the pair sitting in week five is real.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Claim workflow discovery, rule mapping and the refusal boundaryW2Source integration and the edit-check baselineW3Count binding, carry-over checks and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, sample cases and failure-mode testingW5Point-of-service and portal integration, a pilot month and targeted correctionsW6One claim month run under the food authority official, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar sits only on the weeks its work is named in. The fifth-week overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The final checks clear on live sites and monitoring moves to Agent Care.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Education AI agent
Build a claim agent around the official who signs.
Show us your sites, your registers and who signs the claim. How long does the record have to last — longer than 7 CFR 210.23 keeps it, because 7 CFR 210.18 can reach past it, and where the data has gone 7 CFR 210.19 has the state reconstruct your meal accounts.
