Hold the Clery reporting record whole — the authority register and who must never be asked, each report with geography applied, the log clock — while a named survey administrator submits.
A report reaches a person on the authority register, and it enters the record with what that person was asked.
02
A counsellor acting as one is not a campus security authority under 34 CFR 668.46(a), and is never asked.
Reason
03
A log entry falls due within two business days of the report, and the clock is run in business days.
04
A report is placed against Clery geography property by property, and a recognised fraternity house is a property.
05
A prescribed policy statement missing from the draft report is named before 1 October, not after.
Decide
06
A decision not to warn is filed with the time of confirmation and the decider, exactly as a decision to warn is.
07
An unfounding enters as a determination by sworn officers with its basis, and the removal becomes a disclosure.
Out
08
A hazing statistic is compiled on a stated reading, and 34 CFR 668.46 does not yet carry the word.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent compiles the record and runs the clocks; a named campus safety survey administrator submits, and sworn officers alone unfound.
Example workflow
One reporting year, report to submission
AgentHuman
1Report reaches an authorityCampus police, a registered security authority, a local agency or a published reporting channel
2Record assembledThe report as received, the geography applied to it, the log time and the authority who took it
3File compiledAuthority register, log clock, geography, warning file and confidence
4Controls appliedExclusion checks, geography checks, the two-business-day log clock and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and none of them classifies an incident — the agent is compiling, and the administrator lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the survey administrator to review.
Low confidence
Adds a sworn-officer read first.
Administrator review
The record is held with the geography applied, the clocks and the confidence.
Review · Correct · Send to sworn review
Reviewed — the administrator submits▼
6Reporting record updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedRegister completeness, log-clock accuracy, geography coverage and findings raised in review
Corrections
Every administrator correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Classifying an incident as final against the Clery definitions.
Unfounding a report — reserved to sworn officers by 34 CFR 668.46(c)(2).
Deciding that a timely warning is required, or that one is not.
Asking a pastoral or professional counsellor to report what was told to them.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Register each authority by function, with the basis for including them.
✓Run the two-business-day log clock and flag an entry that is overdue.
✓Request statistics from the agency with jurisdiction over each noncampus property.
✓Show what the report is missing against the prescribed policy statements, and hold it.
Wrong after distribution, and the fix is a restated report and an amended federal submission.
Submitting or locking the federal campus safety survey.
Determining whether a property sits inside Clery geography.
Choosing which reading of the hazing effective date the institution takes.
Changes to register, geography or disclosure-control configuration.
Example output
One reported incident, annotated
Everything the agent records is attached to the report or the register entry it came from.
Reporting-record output · single incidentIllustrative example
Incident
Recorded finding
Log clock
Geography applied
Confidence
Classification status
Residence hall report
A report taken by a residence life coordinator has sat in the log with nobody asked to classify it
41 hours open
34 CFR 668.46(f)
88%
Unclassified — not yet put
As receivedTaken from the report as received and the register as built — an alert our safety-monitoring agent routes to a counsellor is not a report here, and is never wired in as one.
Record usedReport as receivedAuthority registerDaily crime log
Why this flagThe clock runs from the report, not from the classification — the overdue log entry is the finding, not the crime.
ActionReviewCorrectSend to sworn review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the record picks up a sworn-officer read before the administrator 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 report receivedFrom the report as received
03Compiling
Compile against the definitions
Draw on the reports as received, the register and the geography applied. The 2016 Handbook was rescinded on 9 October 2020 as outside the scope of the statutory and regulatory authority — and the sector still cites its page numbers.
01Approved path
Some people must not be asked
Routine register upkeep and log-clock arithmetic arrive already done.
02Human review
Point people at what a federal reviewer will demand
Unasked authorities, overdue log entries and geography gaps are marked. Hazing enters the annual security report for the first time, and the statute reads on one view as the report published in 2026 and on another as the report covering 2026 and published in 2027; the record carries which reading was taken, because no departmental guidance has been located.
04Build an evidence trail
The report, the geography applied to it and the administrator who filed 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.
A campus-level authority-register figure can read sound while a single crime category holds most of the uncounted reports and the unapplied geography. Nestack reports the gap rate by crime category, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
VAWA offence categories
8.6%
3.7×
Review
Hate-crime bias categories
6.2%
2.6×
Review
Disciplinary referral categories
3.9%
1.7×
Watch
Burglary and motor vehicle theft
1.5%
0.6×
Normal
Bar: gap-rate lift vs. the burglary-and-vehicle-theft baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
An uncounted report ends as a test
A cycle is done when the uncounted report has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next year compiled is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Gap rate rises in one crime category.
02Diagnose
The coach nobody had told, and the counsellor who must not be told, are read back through the register until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
Number the change; the incidents that drove it are filed under it.
04Verify
Each touched incident case is run once more, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
It stays as a standing test, and the geography rules move with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next year is compiled 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, reporting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Reporting workflow discovery and refusal boundary.
02Incident and log-source assessment.
03Authority register, geography and clock mapping.
04Report and register ingestion.
05Clock arithmetic and geography binding.
06Confidence scoring and finding routing.
07Survey administrator review workflow.
08Incident and survey-system integration.
09Classification and geography cases.
10Guardrails and disclosure controls.
11Incident-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 campus, one reporting yearProductionProduction incident and survey systemsAdvancedMultiple campuses / systems
Introduced at Pilot
Record compiling to your register✓✓✓
Administrator review✓✓✓
Authority-register baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by category—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved record write-back—✓✓
Incident-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-campus and multi-property rules——✓
Multi-stage institutional approvals——✓
High incident volume——✓
Multi-campus statistics controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, incident 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 reporting channels and where reports land→Report and register ingestion, and geography bindingWeek 1
02Representative files from a past reporting year→Register baseline, clock normalisation and rule bindingWeek 2
03Your geography register and your exclusion basis→Authority register, geography and clock mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Incident, log and survey-source review, then integration setupWeek 2
05Statistics you would not want re-counted→Log cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no security report may omit→Confidence scoring, finding routing, guardrails and disclosure controlsWeek 3
07The named campus safety survey administrator→Administrator 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
A band is exactly as wide as the weeks that one phase eats, which is why week five must carry two.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Reporting workflow discovery, register mapping and the refusal boundaryW2Record integration and the authority-register baselineW3Clock arithmetic, geography binding and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, log cases and failure-mode testingW5Incident and survey integration, a pilot year and targeted correctionsW6One reporting year run under the survey administrator, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar sits only on the weeks its work is named in. The fifth-week overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6When the report validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Education AI agent
Build a Clery agent around the person who submits.
Show us your reporting channels, your geography register and who holds the designation. Not a report generator. A reconstruction engine — because the evidence lists in the federal review letters of late 2025 are the specification.
