Track the filing windows and the missing dossier elements for athletes in a registered pool, never their locations. It does not file, decide an exemption, assess a result or say a substance is permitted.
A window opens each quarter, and the duty does not close with it — any change since is due immediately.
02
An element is missing — imaging results, a failed-alternative note — and a dossier short of one is returned unread.
Reason
03
A failure is dated to the first day of its quarter, so the rolling twelve months is already part spent.
04
A pool is read from the athlete's own organisation: UKAD's domestic pool asks less of them than its NRTP does.
05
An exemption is in writing before use, and a national grant may not bind the federation an athlete travels to.
Decide
06
An address is never held: the minimisation test a 2026 EU judgment applied, to a different question.
07
A notice arrives on a clock that authority sets itself; the standard calls the deadline short and never fixes it.
Out
08
A consent signature is held per athlete per year, with the date education reached them before their first test.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent holds the clocks and the completeness state; the athlete files personally, two named clinicians certify the dossier, and a committee decides it.
Example workflow
One filing window, open to closed
AgentHuman
1Window opensPool assignment, the organisation's published calendar and the athlete's own record
2Position assembledWhich pool, which obligations, what the last quarter carried and what is still open
3State computedDue, open, filed, stale or overdue, with the deemed date behind each
4Controls appliedPool-rule checks, deemed-date arithmetic, element-completeness tests and a location-content block
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is filed at any of them — the agent is tracking, and the programme lane opens at the completeness gate.
5DecisionBranches at the completeness gate
Position clear
Goes to the athlete to act on.
Anything open
Adds a programme-lead read first.
Athlete action
The position is held with its deadline, its open elements and the deemed dates.
Acknowledge · Attach element · Escalate to lead
Cleared — the athlete files it▼
6Programme record updatedOnly where write access and privacy policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedPrompt delivery, element completeness, returned dossiers and what a rebuttal later found
Corrections
Every programme-lead correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Filing whereabouts, or any update to one.
Deciding whether exemption criteria are met.
Saying whether a substance is permitted.
Assessing a result or an analytical finding.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Track the window, the deemed dates and the update duty.
✓Check the dossier for each element the granting organisation lists.
✓Run each clock against that authority's own published interval.
✓Evidence that a prompt was delivered, to whom, and when.
Nothing here is filed or decided — the athlete files, clinicians sign, a panel decides.
Storing an address, an overnight stay or a daily slot.
Holding a credential that could file for an athlete.
Deciding which pool an athlete belongs in.
Ranking athletes by predicted non-compliance.
Example output
One filing window, annotated
In its 2025 recommendations the EDPB called the proposed retention very long for data that may include geolocations and minors, so this side holds a date and a state, never an address.
Whereabouts position · single windowIllustrative example
Athlete
Obligation
Deemed date
Source of record
Confidence
Who files
Registered-pool athlete
Quarterly filing, plus every update the quarter has since made necessary
First day of quarter
Pool assignment, read-only
Update due
The athlete, personally
As receivedTaken from the pool assignment and the organisation's calendar — no location content is held on this side.
What the position showsThe window and its datesThe elements still openThe prompts delivered
Why this stays openFiling on the deadline opens the duty rather than discharging it.
ActionAcknowledgeAttach elementEscalate to lead
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the position picks up a programme-lead read before.
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 windowFrom the pool assignment
03Tracking
Tracks duties, not substances
Our nutrition agent suppresses a supplement question and routes it to a named dietitian; this one records that it was asked and to whom.
01Approved path
It holds clocks, not places
Minimisation asks whether a less restrictive means exists. A due date, a state and an element flag are that means.
02Human review
Where the exposure actually sits
Not on the programme — in CAS 2020/A/7526 & 7559 an athlete who delegates filing assumes all risks for the third party's errors. So this agent never files.
04Build an evidence trail
The window, the element still missing and the clinician who signed stay on the dossier.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A squad-level element-completeness figure can sit inside tolerance while a single pool carries nearly all of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by pool, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Registered testing pool
7.1%
3.6×
Review
Exemption dossiers
5.2%
2.7×
Review
Results-management clocks
3.7%
1.9×
Watch
Settled quarterly filings
2.5%
1.3×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. settled-quarterly-filing baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The window was running already
A cycle is done when the backdated failure has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next window worked is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises in one pool.
02Diagnose
The quarter that was already half spent when the notice arrived is read back until one cause remains.
03Improve
Stamp the change; the windows behind it are filed against that number.
04Verify
Each touched window case is run again, and one red stops the release.
05Learn
It stays a standing test, and the pool rules move with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next window is worked 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, obligation tracking, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Obligation-workflow discovery and boundary setting.
02Pool and authority register assessment.
03Window, element and clock rule mapping per authority.
04Calendar ingestion and normalisation.
05Deemed-date logic and element binding.
06Completeness scoring and exception routing.
07Athlete prompt and escalation workflow.
08Programme-calendar and roster integration.
09Window and element cases.
10Guardrails and privacy controls.
11Window-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 squad, one poolProductionProduction programme systemsAdvancedMultiple sports / organisations
Introduced at Pilot
Tracking to your pools and clocks✓✓✓
Athlete-action gating✓✓✓
Element-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by pool—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Programme-calendar integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Complex multi-authority rule sets——✓
Multi-stage programme escalation——✓
High athlete volume——✓
Multi-organisation window 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 pool assignments and athlete roster→Pool and authority register setupWeek 1
02Representative dossiers and past windows→Completeness baseline and deemed-date bindingWeek 2
03Your authority intervals and their verification dates→Window, element and clock rule mapping, and the boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Calendar, roster and LMS assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Dossiers you would not want refused→Rebuttal cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no dossier may leave open→Completeness scoring, exception routing, guardrails and privacy controlsWeek 3
07Named programme leads, and the athletes prompted→Athlete prompt 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
What sizes each band is elapsed work and not the page, and so the fifth week accordingly doubles.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Obligation discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the completeness baselineW3Window tracking, deemed-date logic and privacy controlsW4Evaluation suite, rebuttal cases and failure-mode testingW5Programme-system integration, pilot pools and targeted correctionsW6One filing quarter run under the programme lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers the weeks its own work is named in and no others. The fifth week genuinely carries two.
At the end of W6When the quarter validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Sports & Fitness agent
Build an anti-doping agent around the athlete who has to file.
Tell us which pools your athletes sit in and which organisation governs each. Not a filing service. A clock, an element list and a prompt you can evidence — for elite programmes, governing bodies and collegiate compliance offices, not clubs.
