Triage reported posts, clips, comments and streams against your published policy, assemble the context a reviewer needs and draft the statement of reasons — enforcement against a person stays with your trust-and-safety team.
Take the report or the detection — a post, clip, comment or livestream segment — with who raised it and on what ground.
02
Read the policy as published, the version in force, and the account's prior strikes, open appeals and standing.
Reason
03
Match the material to a policy clause in the language it was written in, and record which clause and which version.
04
Gather what a reviewer needs to decide — the thread around it, the caption, the account history and the reporter's claim.
05
Mark what it could not read — an unsupported language, a dialect, spoken audio or satire — as undetermined, not clean.
Decide
06
Route the case to the queue that matches it, and send a child-safety or imminent-harm match to the named path now.
07
Hold a first strike, a suspected minor, a protected category or a low-confidence match for a person to decide.
Out
08
Draft the statement of reasons and the appeal route for the reviewer to check, correct, sign and send.
09
Retain the material, the policy version, the evidence, the reviewer's decision and every appeal outcome.
→Product statement
The agent triages, gathers and drafts against the policy you publish. Removing content, restricting an account and answering an appeal are decided and signed by a reviewer, and a breach of your policy is not a finding of law.
Example workflow
One report, end to end
AgentHuman
1Report or detection receivedA user report, a proactive detection or a trusted-flagger notice, with the ground it was raised on
2Policy and account readThe clause list as published, the version in force, and the account's strikes, appeals and standing
3Context assembledThe material itself, the thread around it, the caption, the language detected and the reporter's claim
4Clause match proposedThe clause it appears to breach, the confidence on that match, and what the agent could not read
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — the case is assembled before anyone is asked to read anything. A child-safety or imminent-harm match ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on the category, the confidence and whether a duty attaches
Routine category, clause matched
Reaches the reviewer queue with the notice drafted.
Duty attaches, or nothing could be read
Goes to the named specialist now, not to a queue.
Trust-and-safety reviewer
The reviewer reads the material, the clause, the account history and the drafted notice, then decides the action and signs the reasons given for it.
Uphold · Leave up · Escalate
Signed — handed back▼
6Action recorded, notice sentOnly the action a reviewer signed, with the reasons, the evidence kept and the appeal route attached
7Outcome evaluatedReviewer agreement, appeal reversals, escalation timing and accuracy by language and dialect
Appeals
Every decision overturned on appeal is counted against the match that caused it.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Removing content or disabling access to it.
Suspending, restricting or banning an account.
Deciding an appeal against an enforcement action.
Signing the notice a user receives after enforcement.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Assemble the material, the thread, the account history and the report.
✓Match against the version in force and name the clause.
✓Mark what it could not read as undetermined, and say why.
✓Route the case to the matching queue and draft the notice for a reviewer.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Enforcement is not one of them.
Handling child sexual abuse material or imminent harm.
Referring a user to law enforcement or a regulator.
Deciding whether material is illegal in a territory.
Changing a policy clause or an enforcement threshold.
Example output
One reported item, annotated
Everything the agent proposes is attached to the report and the account it came from.
Triage output · single reported itemIllustrative example
Reported item
Language
Policy
Proposed route
Confidence
Notice
Short video with caption
Regional dialect, spoken
Version in force
Senior reviewer — nothing actioned
58%
Drafted, unsent
As receivedThe item, the language it was spoken in and the policy version it was read against.
Evidence usedClause and version, datedThread and captionAccount's prior strikes
Why nothing is actionedThe dialect is one the classifier is weakest on, and the account has no prior strike.
ActionUpholdLeave upEscalate
What the score decidesIt decides who reads the case and how soon — never whether the material is illegal.
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 and detectionFrom users, detection and trusted flaggers
03Policy match
Apply the policy as published
Read the client's own clause list, the version in force and the account's standing under it, and record which clause was matched.
01Approved path
Hand the reviewer a finished case
The material, the clause, the thread and the account history arrive together — as much as the decision needs and no more — so a reviewer's minutes go on deciding rather than on assembling.
02Human review
Move the reportable case first
A child-safety or imminent-harm match leaves for the named escalation path immediately, rather than waiting its turn behind routine reports.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the material, the policy version and clause, the evidence, the confidence, the reviewer's decision, the notice sent and the appeal outcome — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Content & community surfacesUGC platform and CMS · comments and chat Livestream and VOD · direct messaging
A policy applied consistently overall can still be applied worst to the users with the least recourse — the languages and formats carrying most of what appeals overturn. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Low-resource languages
8.0%
5.0×
Review
Dialect and code-switched posts
4.3%
2.7×
Review
Livestream and spoken audio
2.9%
1.8×
Watch
Routine reported spam
1.1%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: appeal-reversal rate lift vs. routine reported spam · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A reversal arrives after the person has served it
An appeal upheld six weeks later does not give back the six weeks. The cycle is judged on how fast the pattern behind the case is found.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Appeal reversals, escalation delay or reviewer disagreement move in one cohort.
02Diagnose
Traced to the context assembled, the clause matched, a term list, the threshold or the routing rule.
03Improve
The clause mapping, term list or routing rule is changed with your trust-and-safety lead, and version-linked.
04Verify
Re-run against held-out reports from that cohort, including the ones an appeal overturned.
05Learn
The overturned case is kept beside the clause it was wrongly matched to.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. A change to a clause changes what you have told users you will do, so it is published before it is enforced, not after.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, policy and escalation, triage and routing, evaluation, review tooling, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Policy, clause and enforcement-ladder map.
03Escalation and preservation, named owners.
04Report, detection and content-source links.
05Context assembly and clause-matching logic.
06Language and dialect coverage assessment.
07Queue routing, priority and hold rules.
08Statement-of-reasons drafting and appeal workflow.
09Evaluation suite, slices and regression cases.
10Reviewer console and exposure controls.
11Transparency and enforcement reporting.
12Observability, deployment 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 surface, one policy areaProductionProduction queue integrationAdvancedMulti-surface / multi-language
Introduced at Pilot
Case triage against your published policy✓✓✓
Escalation and preservation routing✓✓✓
Reviewer exposure controls✓✓✓
Enforcement and appeals decided by a person✓✓✓
Statement of reasons and appeal route✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Queue routing, priority and reviewer console✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Detection and hash-matching connections—✓✓
Observability and slice evaluation—✓✓
Additional languages and dialect coverage—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Transparency reporting and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on the surfaces and languages in scope, report volume, detection and case-management integrations, review controls, reporting depth 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
01The policy you publish, and the clause list behind it→Policy, clause and enforcement-ladder mapWeek 1
02Your path for child safety and imminent harm, and who owns it→Escalation and preservation, with named ownersWeek 1
03Access to your content, report and case-management systems→Report, detection and content-source linksWeek 2
04The languages and dialects your users actually post in→Language and dialect coverage assessmentWeek 3
05Enforcement decisions you had to reverse on appeal→Evaluation suite, slices and regression casesWeek 4
06How your reviewers are protected from what they are shown→Reviewer console and exposure controlsWeek 5
07Named trust-and-safety reviewers and an appeals owner→Appeal workflow, then supervised cases and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the language slices and the first cases a reviewer works from the agent's triage.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Policy, clause ladder and the escalation path with its named ownerW2Source connections, context assembly and the triage baselineW3Clause matching, language coverage and queue routingW4Reasons drafting, appeal workflow and the evaluation slicesW5Reviewer console, exposure controls and supervised casesW6Transparency reporting, production validation and Agent Care handover
Reading the bandThe escalation path is built and walked through in week 1, before the agent triages anything. A child-safety or imminent-harm case does not wait on the evaluation phase.
At the end of W6Reviewers have worked live cases from the agent's triage and signed the reasons on everything that went out, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Media AI agent
Build a moderation agent around your policy and your reviewers.
Show us the policy you publish, a week of the reports you actually get, and the enforcement decisions you had to reverse. We'll triage that week against your own clauses and show you the cases it refused to decide, the languages it could not read and the notices a reviewer would have had to rewrite.
