PR AI agent · Review response
Review Response AI Agent
Draft the public reply, name the record behind each factual assertion it makes about the reviewer, keep the regulated detail out of it, and leave the sending to a named officer.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Named officer
- Basis first
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Drafts the reply, never sends it
In
- 01
A review lands, and the reply drafted for it is held to what a named record will support.
- 02
A lookup returns nothing, and the silence is filed as an absence, never as proof of a fact.
Reason
- 03
A draft names a service fact, and the clearance to disclose it is filed before the draft moves.
- 04
A review alleges harm, and it leaves the reply queue for the desk that owns that duty.
- 05
A draft accuses the reviewer, and 16 CFR 465.7(a) asks what was known when it went out.
Decide
- 06
A reply is published, and it is reconciled afterwards against what the platform still shows.
- 07
A platform takes a reply down, and the removal is logged, because nothing compels it back.
Out
- 08
A review cannot be answered without asserting a fact, and that is recorded as the finding.
- 09
Publish a reply only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
Drafting, the basis record and the hold belong to the agent. The reply belongs to a named officer, who signs the basis under it and carries it afterwards.
Example workflow
One reply, review to signature
- 1Review receivedPublic platform pages, review feeds, in-app ratings or a syndicated partner site
- 2Assertions separated outThe sentences that assert a fact about the reviewer, and the sentences that assert nothing
- 3Basis attached per assertionThe system, the record identifier, the field and the moment that field was read
- 4Controls appliedDisclosure checks, assertion checks, escalation 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 assertion gate.
Goes to the named officer to sign.
Adds the privacy official first.
Officer review
The draft is held with the review, the basis for each assertion and the disclosure clearance.
Sign · Strip the assertion · Send to privacy review
Signed — by the named officer
- 6Reply log and disclosure register updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedAssertion accuracy, disclosure clearance, officer corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each redaction 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
- Signing the basis behind a factual assertion.
- Deciding a reviewer was never a customer.
- Clearing a regulated fact for publication.
- Publishing a reply that carries a name.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Draft the reply and name the record under each fact.
- ✓Attach the system, the identifier and the read time to an assertion.
- ✓Hold any reply asserting a fact until its basis line is complete.
- ✓Reconcile replies sent against replies still live.
Nothing is published except by a named officer, inside the agreed approval boundaries.
- Judging whether an accusation is founded.
- Telling a board the reply record is clean.
- Choosing which reviews get a human reply.
- Changes to disclosure or assertion rules.
Example output
One reply, annotated
This serves a comms team who may have to show, years later, what a reply asserted and on what basis — the ground OCR covered against Manasa Health Center, LLC, on a resolution agreement effective 28 March 2023.
Reply record · single item
Illustrative example- Platform
- Public review page, named account
- Review
- Two-star review, service complaint
- Assertion
- No assertion about the person
- Basis of record
- Ticket record, 3 August 2026
- Confidence
- Held unsigned
- Held for
- The named officer, by name
As received
Drawn from the review itself and one named ticket record, and it asserts nothing past those two.
What this record holds
- Basis per assertion
- Disclosure clearance
- Escalation check
Why no signature here
Standing behind an accusation is a judgement a named officer makes.
What the score decides
Below the configured confidence the draft gets a senior read before the officer sees it.
Action
SignStrip the assertionSend to privacy reviewValue
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
Any reply published
Against the review it answers
What the reply may assert
The agent cannot know whether an accusation is true; it records what was read, when it was read, and which sentence in the draft rests on it.
What the reply gave away
16 CFR 465.7(a) is the one provision in Part 465 aimed at what a business says back, and it turns on knowledge or reckless disregard — a state of mind.
What was checked, and not found
No verified instrument compels a platform to take a review down: P2B Article 4 reaches restriction of the business user listing, not moderation of a review of it. Removal is a request granted at the discretion of the platform, which is why the reply carries the whole load.
Build an evidence trail
The reply, the review it answers and the person who published it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Public review platforms
- Review pages
- public ratings feeds
- The review text as posted
Customer service records
- CRM
- ticketing
- order history
- What the basis line names
Regulated record systems
- Clinical
- financial
- student files
- Read for clearance, never quoted
Agent
Review response and basis control
- Reads the review
- Drafts the reply
- Holds for the officer
Comms and privacy records
- Reply log
- disclosure register
- Two signatories and the timestamps
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six locks between the draft and the platform
Six locks on one door, the last the heaviest. What opens is set out in the map drawn below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a reply may go out
- L3
- Leaves the signature to a named officer
- L4 – L5
- Keep the reply and the review behind it
- L6
- Replies with acknowledgement alone when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole drafting run — not only the reply that goes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the reply a reviewer reads
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the reply assert only what a named record supports?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right account, the right record and the live clearance?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct review and the correct reply?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence replies actually attract more officer redactions?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific reply classes?
- E6Business outcomeHow many drafts needed a correction before the officer signed?
Floor — the records a signature rests on
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each set where the reply first exposes it.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- UG-01
Reviewer bound to a stranger
The display name matched a record that is not theirs.
Stage gathers
The review, the account and the records read
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- UG-02
Empty lookup read as a fact
No record found is drafted as no customer.
- UG-03
Duty-bearing review misread
A safety allegation is answered as a complaint.
Stage drafts
The assertions, the basis lines and clearance
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- UG-04
Regulated fact put in the reply
The specific, helpful reply is the disclosure.
- UG-05
Firm correction reads as threat
Character assassination is the listed example.
Stage writes
Only where the platform and records policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- UG-06
Named signature on a drafted reply
The person on the reply never read the assertion.
Stage returns
The reply a reviewer and a regulator read
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- UG-07
Silent platform-rule drift
A reply comes down between reports and nothing errors.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, reply rules and platform terms
- Sev-1 · a regulated fact reaches the reply
- Sev-2 · an accusation goes out unfounded
- Sev-3 · basis unclear, reply held back
Affected slices
Service-fact replies absorb the corrections
An account-level clearance figure can read clean while the replies that name a service fact take most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by reply class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Replies naming a service fact | 8.1% | 3.7× | Review | |
| Reviews alleging harm or breach | 5.7% | 2.6× | Review | |
| Lower-resource language replies | 3.6% | 1.6× | Watch | |
| Acknowledgement-only replies | 1.9% | 0.9× | Normal |
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. acknowledgement-only baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a disclosing reply costs
The loop shuts when the reply that said more than the reviewer did is a standing case. That suite is what the next reply is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Correction rate rises on replies that name a service fact.
- 02
Diagnose
The reply that read as the best draft of the week, because it was specific, is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
- 03
Improve
Every reply goes out numbered, with the review that prompted it attached.
- 04
Verify
Nothing publishes while one touched disclosure case is red.
- 05
Learn
The case stays on, and the reply rules are rewritten alongside it.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next reply is measured 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, assertion control, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Assertion rules and automation-boundary definition.Week 1
- 02Review, service and regulated sources.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Assertion-to-basis and disclosure-clearance mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Review ingestion.Week 2
- 05Review, account and record binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Assertion scoring and privacy routing.Week 3
- 07Officer signature workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Comms-record integration.Week 5
- 09Disclosure and accusation cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and reply controls.Week 4
- 11Reply-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
- 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 tier | PilotOne platform set, one cycle | ProductionProduction comms workflow | AdvancedMultiple platforms / languages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Reply drafting to your clearance rules | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Named officer signature | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Platform-inventory baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by review class | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Officer review workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved reply write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Platform-and-desk integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-sector clearance rules | — | — | ✓ |
| Cross-platform reply packs | — | — | ✓ |
| Large review queues | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-platform reply controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, review volume, disclosure 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.
You bring
We build with it
01Your live platform accounts and who answers on each
→Assertion capture and basis recording
Week 102Representative review, service and record sources
→Source binding, clearance rules and the reply baseline
Week 203Your escalation map and the officers it names
→Disclosure mapping, assertion rules and the automation boundary
Week 104Access to relevant platform APIs, feeds or exports
→Review, service and record source assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Replies you would not want subpoenaed
→Accusation cases and the evaluation round
Week 406What no reply may assert
→Privacy routing, officer holds, guardrails and release controls
Week 307A named officer who signs the basis
→Privacy-official sign-off, 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
Widths here track cost and not the grid, which is why the fifth week draws one band beneath another.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Disclosure discovery, assertion rules and the automation boundary
W2Platform integration and the reply-record baseline
W3Reply drafting, privacy routing and release controls
W4Evaluation suite, disclosure cases and failure-mode testing
W5Comms-record integration, pilot replies and targeted corrections
W6One reply cycle run under the reputation owner, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- Each bar spans only the weeks its own work is named for, and week five carries two by design.
- At the end of W6
- Once the reply record validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · PR AI agent
Build a review response agent around the basis your last reply never wrote down.
Show us one month of replies and the record behind each fact they assert about a reviewer. Where a reply says a person was never a customer, ask which record establishes that. 16 CFR 465.7(a) does not ask whether the sentence was wrong. It asks what you knew.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your live platforms
- Named officer
- Basis first
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Review response
AGT-COM-10 · Agent Care available after launch