Main site

PR AI agent · Social listening

Social Listening AI Agent

Watch what strangers say without pretending it is not surveillance: date the first ingestion, screen what arrived unasked, and leave the notification call to a named assessor.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Named assessor
Basis first
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Observes the mention, never answers it

In

  1. 01

    A post is ingested, and the day it was obtained is written down before a score is put on it.

  2. 02

    An account is named, and the Article 14(3)(a) clock starts on that day, not at launch.

Reason

  1. 03

    A mention reveals a faith or a union, and it leaves the general store for a screened one.

  2. 04

    A person objects under Article 21(1), and watching that account stops until a signature lands.

  3. 05

    A retention term runs down, and the post leaves the corpus rather than renewing on later activity.

Decide

  1. 06

    A query reaches into a closed group, and it is refused at the edge of the public web.

  2. 07

    Nothing is found for a term, and that is logged as an absence of posts, not of feeling.

Out

  1. 08

    A sentiment score is issued, and the annotator agreement behind it travels in the same row.

  2. 09

    Collect only inside the platform and territorial boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

Collection, screening and the record belong to the agent. The Article 14 determination belongs to a named assessor, who signs it inside the assessment, dates it and carries it afterwards.

Example workflow

One mention, ingestion to determination

  1. 1Mention retrievedPublic timelines, forums, review boards, contracted feeds or the profile page itself
  2. 2Lawful basis recordedThe balancing note, the purpose it serves, the day of first ingestion and the term set against it
  3. 3Screened for special categoryThe post, what it reveals unasked, and whether that can be separated at collection
  4. 4Screens appliedBasis checks, Article 9 screening, retention checks and collection confidence

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nobody outside is told at any of them — that invisibility is what makes the assessment compulsory, and the assessor lane opens at the notification gate.

5DecisionSplits at the notification gate
An ordinary brand mention

Goes into the numbered listening report.

Anything naming a person

Reaches the data protection officer first.

Assessor review

The mention is held with its basis, its screening result and the day it was obtained.

Notify · Rely on the exception · Refer to counsel

Determined — by the named assessor

  1. 6Processing record and assessment updatedOnly where write access and the retention policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedBasis accuracy, screening accuracy, assessor corrections and what the review found

Corrections logged

Each assessor correction is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Ruling that notification is disproportionate.
    • Overriding an objection under Article 21(1).
    • Agreeing what a lawful basis actually covers.
    • Signing the assessment a regulator reads first.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Date the first ingestion and hold that date on file.
    • ✓Screen each post for what it reveals without asking.
    • ✓Drop a mention once the retention term set against it has expired.
    • ✓Halt collection on an account the moment an objection is filed.

    Nothing is collected except under a basis a named assessor has signed and dated.

    • Judging whether a purpose is compelling enough.
    • Telling a board the corpus was lawfully held.
    • Choosing which platforms may be watched at all.
  • Changes to retention terms or collection scope.

Example output

One mention, annotated

This serves a comms team who may have to show, years later, why a stranger was watched and under what basis — the ground the CNIL covered in deliberation SAN-2024-020 of 5 December 2024, closed on 4 March 2026 once the database had been deleted.

Mention record · single post

Illustrative example
Account
Public forum, a named individual
Post
Service complaint, open thread
Screening
Nothing special-category
Basis of record
Legitimate interests, 3 August 2026
Confidence
Held undetermined
Held for
The named assessor, by name

As received

Taken from one open thread and the account that wrote it, and it claims nothing about the person.

What the mention record holds

  • Basis in force
  • Ingestion date
  • Retention term

Why no determination here

Notifying a stranger is a call the named assessor has to make.

What the score decides

Below the configured confidence the mention gets a senior read before the assessor sees it.

Action

NotifyRely on the exceptionRefer to counsel

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

Any mention kept

From the person who wrote it

03Basis

How long the post may stay

The agent does not weigh whether a post is fair or true; public availability is one factor inside the balancing note, and never a basis on its own.

01Approved path

They were not talking to you

Since 5 February 2026 the UK exception sits in Article 14(5)(e) to (f), with substitute notice made express and mandatory. The EU wording was narrowed instead.

02Human review

What was looked for, and never found

No register, no permit, no form and no regulator portal was found for social listening in the EU, the UK or the US. The vetted-researcher route under DSA Article 40 is barred to a brand by its own commercial interest, so what is left is Article 36 prior consultation.

04

Build an evidence trail

The mention, the account behind it and the analyst who kept it stay together.

Integrations

Typical integrations

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

  • Open platform interfaces

    • Public endpoints
    • timelines
    • The posts inside a sampled window

  • Forums and review boards

    • Boards
    • threads
    • comments
    • Named accounts and post dates

  • Contracted data providers

    • Firehose resellers
    • data brokers
    • Bought coverage and its own limits

Agent

Social listening and basis control

  • Reads the mentions
  • Screens the post
  • Holds for the assessor

  • Privacy and records systems

    • Processing records
    • assessments
    • Objections, erasures and the dates

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

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

Agent controls

Six gates between the post and the report

Six meshes in one stack, the last the closest. What collects is drawn in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to mention volume when basis or evaluation signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt and collection rules, and note the version each mention was taken under.Track
L4TraceabilityKeep each mention with its account, the basis it was taken under and each read of the file.Record
L3Assessor releaseHold the mention for a named assessor; the hold governs release, not whether watching was fair.Gate
L2Retention guardrailsTest each post against the term set for it, and refuse a renewal triggered by later profile edits.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute a thin or figurative read to a senior review before the listening report circulates.Require review
Model coreMention collected — the account, the basis, the screening result and its ingestion trace
L1 – L2
Test whether a post may be kept
L3
Leaves the determination to a named assessor
L4 – L5
Keep the mention and the lawful basis behind it
L6
Collects volume alone when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole collection — not only the report that comes out.

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

Surface — the report a comms team reads

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the report count people, or accounts that merely look like people?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right platforms, the right window and the live basis?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct account and the correct mention?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence mentions actually attract more assessor corrections?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific platform classes?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many mentions needed a correction before the assessor determined?

Floor — the corpus a determination rests on

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, each set at the stage where it first surfaces.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • TL-01

      Sample read as the corpus

      The stream returns a slice and names no gap.

    Stage gathers

    The terms, the platforms, the window and the posts

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • TL-02

      Irony scored as outrage

      A joke reaches the report as a spike.

    • TL-03

      Special category arrives unasked

      A post reveals a belief nobody queried for.

    Stage screens

    The account, the basis and the screening

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • TL-04

      Bot volume moves a decision

      An inflated count reaches a budget line.

    • TL-05

      Collection crosses the public edge

      A closed group is added as coverage.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • TL-06

      Named in a report, never told

      The one-month notice lapsed during the pilot.

    Stage returns

    The listening report a comms team and a board read

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • TL-07

      Silent retention renewal

      A profile edit restarts a term that should have ended.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, collection rules and retention

  • Sev-1 · holds posts on no basis at all
  • Sev-2 · a stranger is named with no notice
  • Sev-3 · basis unclear, mention held back
See the complete Public Relations failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

Code-mixed posts absorb the corrections

A corpus-level basis figure can read clean while posts written across two languages take most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by platform class, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Code-mixed and non-English posts11.3%3.7×Review
Posts naming an individual8.0%2.6×Review
Ironic or figurative mentions5.0%1.6×Watch
Verified corporate accounts2.2%0.7×Normal

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

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

What a renewed term costs

A cycle ends when the post kept past its stated purpose is a standing case. That suite is what the next collection window is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Correction rate rises on posts written across two languages.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The account that was lawfully watched last quarter and is not lawfully watched now is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The report goes out numbered, and the mentions beneath it ride with it.

  4. 04

    Verify

    One retention case still failing is enough to hold the report back.

  5. 05

    Learn

    It is kept for good, and the collection rules are amended in the same commit.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. Each cycle leaves the suite one case longer than it found it.

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, collection control, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

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

  1. 01Lawful-basis mapping and automation-boundary scope.Week 1
  2. 02Platform, forum and provider sources.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Account-attribution and retention-term rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Mention ingestion.Week 2
  5. 05Account, basis and term binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Article 9 screening and objection routing.Week 3
  7. 07Assessor determination workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Privacy-record integration.Week 5
  9. 09Basis and retention cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and collection controls.Week 4
  11. 11Mention-trail 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 platform set, one windowProductionProduction listening workflowAdvancedMultiple platforms / languages
Introduced at Pilot
Mention collection to your basis✓✓✓
Named assessor determination✓✓✓
Collection-scope baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by platform class—✓✓
Assessor review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved privacy write-back—✓✓
Listener-and-store integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-basis reconciliation——✓
Cross-platform mention packs——✓
Large mention archives——✓
Multi-platform collection controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, platform coverage, retention 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 platforms and the basis each is watched under

    Basis capture and retention tracking

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative platform, forum and provider sources

    Source binding, screening rules and the collection baseline

    Week 2

  3. 03Your privacy calendar and the assessors it names

    Basis mapping, retention terms and the automation boundary

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant platform interfaces or exports

    Platform, forum and provider source assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Records you would not want subject-accessed

    Retention cases and the evaluation round

    Week 4

  6. 06What no listener may retain

    Objection routing, assessor holds, guardrails and release controls

    Week 3

  7. 07A named assessor who signs the determination

    Release to the named assessor, 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

These bands are measured, not evened out; week five carries two because the two genuinely overlap.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

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

Week focus

W1Basis discovery, retention terms and the automation boundary

W2Platform integration and the collection-scope baseline

W3Article 9 screening, objection routing and release controls

W4Evaluation suite, retention cases and failure-mode testing

W5Privacy-record integration, pilot reports and targeted corrections

W6One listening window run under the data owner, then Agent Care handover

Reading the band
A band here covers the weeks its own work is named in, and week five genuinely doubles.
At the end of W6
When the collection record validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Listening AI agent

Build a social listening agent around the basis your last mention report never recorded.

Show us one listening query and the day it first ran. If nobody can name the basis it runs under, a one-month clock has been running unattended since that day. The case people cite for scraping public profiles ended with the scraper paying and destroying its data.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your live platforms
Named assessor
Basis first
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Social listening

AGT-COM-05 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a social listening agent

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

About you
Your mentions

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