Main site

Public relations AI agent · Crisis communication

Crisis Communication Copilot AI Agent

Say only what the evidence carries: draft the holding line, log the hour it went out and to whom, and leave the assurance itself to the named officer who signs it.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Named officer
Evidence first
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Drafts the assurance, never gives it

In

  1. 01

    A holding line is drafted, and what the evidence carries stays apart from what it promises.

  2. 02

    An hour is stamped on the draft, because 16 CFR 1115.14(e) reads immediately as twenty-four hours.

Reason

  1. 03

    A negative about scope is asked for, and the draft returns the reads, not the absence.

  2. 04

    A supervisory authority is notified, and Article 33(5) makes that record the one read back.

  3. 05

    A media notice is drafted, and 45 CFR 164.406(c) fixes the elements it has to carry.

Decide

  1. 06

    A later fact contradicts an assurance, and it routes to the officer whose name went under it.

  2. 07

    A correction is issued, written as a new line with its own hour, and the old line stands.

Out

  1. 08

    One event is tailored four ways, and the four drafts are held side by side before one goes.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

Drafting, timing and the record belong to the agent. The assurance, and the signature under it, belong to a named officer who answers for it years afterwards.

Example workflow

One assurance, event to issue

  1. 1Event notifiedA field report, an authority query, a customer complaint or a line from the incident record
  2. 2Facts assembled and datedWhat the evidence carries, the source of each line, the hour it arrived and what is still open
  3. 3Holding line draftedThe draft, its sources, what it does not assert and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedSource checks, negative-assertion checks, clock checks and drafting confidence

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is published at any of them — the agent is drafting, and the officer lane opens at the issue gate.

5DecisionSplits at the issue gate
Acknowledgement only

Goes to the named officer to issue.

Anything asserting scope

Adds a crisis-lead read first.

Officer review

The draft is held with its sources, what it does not assert and the clock it sits under.

Issue · Amend · Send to crisis-lead review

Issued — by the named officer

  1. 6Notification and timeline records updatedOnly where write access and disclosure policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedAssurance accuracy, retracted lines, officer corrections and what the later review turned up

Corrections

Each correction the officer makes counts in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Making the materiality determination that starts a clock.
    • Signing a section 15(b) report to the Commission.
    • Promising that no payment data was reached.
    • Deciding a public notice is equally effective.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Draft the holding line from evidence on record.
    • ✓Keep the assurance and the evidence apart in one dated record.
    • ✓Mark what a draft does not assert, beside the facts it does carry.
    • ✓Hold each draft for the officer who issues it.

    Nothing is published except by a named officer, inside the agreed boundaries.

    • Judging whether a risk to rights is high.
    • Telling the public that the facts are settled.
    • Choosing the hour a statutory clock is dated from.
  • Changes to the holding rules or the issue gate.

Example output

One holding line, annotated

An engineering agent keeps the technical incident record; this one keeps what was said outward while the facts were still moving. Below is one draft exactly as the agent leaves it.

Draft output · single event

Illustrative example
Event
Field reports, one product lot
Recorded as
Reports of one failure mode, unverified
Asserted
Draft only
Evidence of record
Field report, 3 August 2026
Confidence
Held unissued
Held for
The named officer, by name

As received

Drawn from the field reports and the notification log, and it asserts nothing those two do not carry.

What the record holds

  • Field report lines
  • Notification log
  • Approval trail

Why no issue here

Giving the public an assurance is an act a named officer alone owns.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold a draft gets a crisis-lead read before the officer sees it.

Action

IssueAmendSend to crisis-lead review

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Each assurance

From the evidence that carries it

03Assurance

Where the assurance is used

Routing a draft through counsel did not protect it in the rulings consulted: facts owed under a statutory duty stayed discoverable, and a lawyer name entered the record beside them.

01Approved path

Said before it was known

The clocks in force start at a judgement — materiality, high risk, significance — and the agent is quickest at the step that comes after one is made.

02Human review

What was checked, and not found

No rule consulted prescribes the words a holding line must use while the facts are still moving. CIRCIA is the clock quoted most often here and it binds nobody, its final rule unpublished; BOD 22-01 stands revoked; and the AI Act incident article binds providers of high-risk systems, now deferred.

04

Build an evidence trail

The holding line, the hour it was issued and the officer who approved it stay together.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Notification and disclosure

    • SEC EDGAR
    • CPSC
    • DFS portals
    • Statutory notification channels

  • Evidence and case records

    • Complaint logs
    • field reports
    • Serious-injury intake logs

  • Statement and distribution

    • Newsroom
    • wire services
    • portals
    • Customer email and public notices

Agent

Crisis communication and notice

  • Reads the evidence
  • Drafts the line
  • Holds the issue

  • Timeline and approvals

    • Legal hold
    • matter management
    • Approval trails and issued versions

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six valves between the model and the wire

Six valves on one main, the last the smallest. What flows is set out in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to acknowledgement drafts when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt and holding rules, and note the version each draft was written under.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord each draft, the sources under it, the hour it was issued and each read of the file.Record
L3Officer releaseHold the draft for a named officer; the hold governs release, not whether the line is true.Gate
L2Assurance guardrailsTest each draft against its sources, and return one promising more than those sources carry.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute a thin or unsourced draft to a crisis-lead read before the officer sees it.Require review
Model coreDraft written — the holding line, its sources, what it does not assert and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a line may go out
L3
Leaves the assurance to a named officer
L4 – L5
Keep the statement and the timeline behind it
L6
Issues nothing beyond acknowledgement when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole drafting run — not only the line that goes out.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the assurance the public reads

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the draft stay inside what its sources actually carried?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right reports, the right hours and the live holding rules?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct event and the correct notification record?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence holding lines actually attract more corrections?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change from one event class to another?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many drafts needed a correction before the officer issued one?

Floor — the record read back under oath

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, each shown at the point it first surfaces.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • TJ-03

      Raw sources bypassed for the summary

      The synthesised timeline is read as the record.

    Stage gathers

    The reports, the hours, the notices and the log

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • TJ-04

      Negative drafted from absence

      Nothing seen is written as nothing reached.

    • TJ-06

      Materiality settled inside a summary

      A hedged position is drafted as a conclusion.

    Stage proposes

    The draft, its sources and what is still open

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • TJ-02

      Four audiences, four scopes

      One event is described four different ways.

    • TJ-05

      Issued ahead of the consultation

      A warning goes out before the regulator read.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • TJ-01

      Issued, the clearance unlogged

      The record shows a line out, not who cleared it.

    Stage returns

    The line the public reads and a regulator files

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • TJ-07

      The correction that does not land

      A figure is revised while the first one stands.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, holding rules and issue gates

  • Sev-1 · an assurance nothing carried
  • Sev-2 · a wrong line reaches the public
  • Sev-3 · sources thin, draft held back
See the complete Communications failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

Consumer-safety notices absorb the corrections

A class-level assurance figure can read clean while consumer-safety notifications carry most of the officer corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by event class, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Consumer-safety notifications11.9%3.7×Review
Cross-border regulator notices8.4%2.6×Review
First-hour holding lines5.3%1.6×Watch
Routine acknowledgement lines2.4%0.7×Normal

Bar: correction-rate lift vs. routine-acknowledgement baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

What an early assurance costs

A cycle shuts when the assurance the facts later contradicted is a standing case. That suite is what the next incident run is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Correction rate rises on consumer-safety notices.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The sentence issued in the first hours that told the public what had not yet been established is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.

  3. 03

    Improve

    Statements ship numbered, and the timeline behind them travels attached.

  4. 04

    Verify

    Each touched assurance case is run again, and one red holds it back.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case is kept, and the escalation rules are amended in that same commit.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next event meets 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, drafting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Crisis-communication and automation-boundary scope.Week 1
  2. 02Evidence, notice and approval sources.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Statutory-notification and officer-signature mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Evidence and notice intake.Week 2
  5. 05Fact binding and draft logic.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and crisis-lead routing.Week 3
  7. 07Officer issue workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Notification-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Assurance and timing cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and escalation controls.Week 4
  11. 11Timeline instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final 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 event class, one cycleProductionProduction crisis-comms workflowAdvancedMultiple regulators / jurisdictions
Introduced at Pilot
Drafting to your holding rules✓✓✓
Named officer issue✓✓✓
Notification-clock baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by incident class—✓✓
Crisis-lead review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved timeline write-back—✓✓
Rota-and-registry integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-regime holding rules——✓
Cross-jurisdiction notice packs——✓
High event volume——✓
Multi-regulator notification controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, notification volume, escalation controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build 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.

  1. 01Your live event classes and the notice each one triggers

    Holding-rule capture and clock versioning

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative events, evidence sets and past statements

    Source binding, drafting logic and the notification baseline

    Week 2

  3. 03Your escalation rota and the officers it names

    Holding-rule mapping, clock binding and the automation boundary

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Evidence, notification and approval source assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Assurances you would not want replayed

    Timing cases and the evaluation round

    Week 4

  6. 06What no holding line may promise

    Confidence scoring, review routing, guardrails and issue controls

    Week 3

  7. 07A named officer who issues the statement

    Handover to the named officer, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

A band here is as wide as its phase costs, so the fifth week shows a pair instead of a neat blank.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Holding-rule discovery, clock versioning and the automation boundary

W2Evidence and notification integration and the timeline baseline

W3Fact binding, drafting logic and issue controls

W4Evaluation suite, timing cases and failure-mode testing

W5Notification-system integration, pilot events and targeted corrections

W6One exercise cycle run under the crisis lead, then Agent Care handover

Reading the band
Each band spans only the weeks its own work is named for, and the fifth carries two.
At the end of W6
Once the timeline record validates, Agent Care adopts the agent.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Public relations AI agent

Build a crisis communication copilot around the sentence your last event published too early.

Show us one event and the first line you put out about it. Not how quickly you responded. What you promised while the facts were still moving, the hour you promised it, and whose name went under it. An assurance the evidence did not carry comes back as a case.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your holding lines
Named officer
Evidence first
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Crisis communication

AGT-COM-04 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a crisis communication copilot

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your events

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.