Trace every sentence in the statement back to the evidence and the date behind it, run the approval and publication clocks per entity, and hand the director the year-on-year delta before they sign.
An entity crosses a reporting threshold, and a scope determination opens for it against each regime separately.
02
An entity is in scope, and the criteria that regime's statement must address are pulled.
Reason
03
An assertion is drafted, and the source, the date and the system behind it ride with it.
04
An entity does none of what California asks, and the disclosure says so.
05
An entity repeats last year's wording, and the change record marks it as repeated verbatim.
Decide
06
An entity is UK-incorporated, and its type decides who approves and signs.
07
A deadline falls in Australia, and the clock runs per entity.
Out
08
An entity publishes, and the homepage link and the written-copy request are both tracked.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the evidence; a director or equivalent approves and signs. It evidences what the group can show and refuses to assert what it cannot — a better document is not better conduct.
2Evidence gatheredPolicies, audits, grievance records, training logs and the source and date behind each
3Statement draftedCriterion coverage, per-assertion evidence, unevidenced items and confidence
4Controls appliedEvidence-binding checks, criterion-coverage checks, clock checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is approved at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the director's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the approving director to review.
Low confidence
Adds a counsel read first.
Director approval
The draft is held with its unevidenced assertions, its change record and the confidence.
Approve · Amend · Send to counsel
Approved — released to sign▼
6Statement records updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedCriterion coverage, unevidenced assertions, register acceptance and post-publication queries
Amendments
Director amendments are counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Signing the statement as a responsible person.
Putting the statement to the governing body.
Assessing the effectiveness of your own actions.
Deciding that an entity need not report this year.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Test each entity against the scope criteria each regime sets out.
✓Carry each assertion with the evidence and date behind it.
✓Run the approval, publication and copy-request clocks.
✓Report the assertions still unevidenced, and what each one is missing.
A director signs it; a correction after publication is republished and explained in public.
Deciding what a risk finding means for a supplier.
Lodging the statement on a public register.
Building an admissibility pack for a customs authority.
Changes to scope, criteria or approval rules.
Example output
One assertion, annotated
What the agent records is attached to the evidence it came from.
Statement output · single assertionIllustrative example
Criterion
What the evidence shows
Last verified
Source on file
Confidence
Disposition
UK reporting area · training
Modern slavery training delivered to buying teams in the named operating companies
Within this year
Training platform log
86%
Held for the approving director
As receivedTaken from the training log and the policy record as filed — nothing on this side is asserted by the agent.
Evidence usedTraining platform logPolicy record on fileOperating-company list
Why this is heldLast year's statement made the same claim, and the evidence behind it is the same.
ActionApproveAmendSend to counsel
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the draft adds a counsel read before it reaches the director.
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 group entityFrom the entity register
03Assembly
Build the statement from the evidence
Draw on the policies, audits and grievance records on file. The mining agent's minerals evidence stops upstream; the retailer is the downstream party whose director signs, and a risk finding here has to survive being written down in public.
01Approved path
The right body must approve
In the UK, s.54(6) ties both acts to the entity type — board and a director for a body corporate, members and a designated member for an LLP. Australia keeps them separate, and its register carries a 2026 guidance document for each.
02Human review
Pending is not in force
Directive (EU) 2026/470, in force 18 March 2026, raised the CSDDD thresholds, moved application to 26 July 2029 and deleted the Union-wide civil liability regime and the climate transition plan obligation. The UK Bill introduced on 30 June 2026 is not law as at 22 August 2026.
04Build an evidence trail
The assertion, the evidence beneath it and the director who approved stay on the statement.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Group and entity dataERP · entity register Statutory accounts · filings
The group reads covered until you split it by entity
A group-level criterion-coverage figure can read complete while one entity type holds most of the unevidenced assertions. No published compliance rate exists to quote, so Nestack reports yours.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Newly in-scope subsidiaries
6.2%
3.4×
Review
Part-owned joint ventures
4.4%
2.4×
Review
Franchised and licensed entities
3.4%
1.8×
Watch
Established parent entities
2.0%
1.1×
Normal
Bar: unevidenced-assertion lift vs. established-parent baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The loop closes on a test, not a fix
The loop shuts when the unevidenced assertion is a regression case. That suite is what the next statement lodged is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
The unevidenced-assertion rate rises in one entity type.
02Diagnose
The statement signed by an officer the Act does not name is read back through the approval record until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
Any change goes out with a number, and the entities that caused it attached.
04Verify
One statement case still red is enough to hold the release back.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the statement record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Every later detection starts from a suite this cycle lengthened.
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, statement assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Statement scope discovery and boundary definition.
02Entity register and evidence-source review.
03Regime criteria and approval-route rule mapping.
04Entity intake and evidence normalisation.
05Statement assembly and evidence binding.
06Confidence scoring and unevidenced routing.
07Director approval workflow.
08Evidence-store and record integration.
09Criterion and approval cases.
10Guardrails and approval controls.
11Statement-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 entity, one regimeProductionProduction evidence systemsAdvancedMultiple regimes / entities
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your entities and rules✓✓✓
Director approval✓✓✓
Criterion-coverage baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by entity—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Group-structure integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-regime criteria rules——✓
Multi-stage board approvals——✓
High entity count——✓
Multi-regime statement controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval 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 group structure and entity register→Entity intake and evidence-source mappingWeek 1
02Your last two published statements→Coverage baseline, evidence binding and the change recordWeek 2
03Your regime scope and approval routes→Regime criteria and approval-route rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Entity register and evidence-source review, then integration setupWeek 2
05Statements you would not want compared→Approval cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no statement may assert→Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07A named director or equivalent to approve→Director approval 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
Each width is the time that phase really occupies, and week five accordingly carries two bands.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Statement scope discovery, regime mapping and the automation boundaryW2Entity and evidence integration and the coverage baselineW3Statement assembly, clock logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, negative-disclosure handling and failure-mode testingW5Evidence-store integration, a pilot entity and targeted correctionsW6One statement cycle run under the approving director, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA band covers the weeks its work is actually named in. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Once the statement validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Retail AI agent
Build a transparency-statement agent around the evidence your director signs.
Show us your group structure, your evidence sources and who signs. Your company secretary already knows which board approved last year's statement — we hand them the evidence behind each sentence, and the year-on-year delta, before the director signs.
