Travel & Hospitality AI agent · Carrier reporting
Carrier Reporting & Certification AI Agent
Draw every disability complaint out of the channel it arrived on, read each into the category 14 CFR 382.157 requires, and hold the annual report for the officer who certifies it.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Named officer
- Two clocks
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Assembles both reports, certifies neither
In
- 01
A complaint arrives, and 14 CFR 382.157 reads it by disability type and by nature of complaint.
- 02
A complaint reaches three channels, and the annual report has to count it once, not once each.
Reason
- 03
A calendar year closes, and 14 CFR 382.157 falls due on the last Monday in January.
- 04
A tarmac event closes, and 14 CFR 259.4(g)(1) allows thirty days to describe it to the DOT.
- 05
A cause is written, and 14 CFR 259.4(g)(2) wants the precise cause of that delay.
Decide
- 06
A monthly file goes to BTS under 14 CFR 234.6, and Part 234 asks nobody to certify it.
- 07
A wheelchair is mishandled, and one event feeds the BTS count and the annual report.
Out
- 08
A record of action is created, and 14 CFR 382.157 keeps it for three years afterwards.
- 09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
The agent normalises complaints and tracks both clocks. A named officer certifies the annual report; a named person signs each tarmac report under 14 CFR 259.4(g)(3).
Example workflow
One complaint, intake to certification
- 1Complaint evidence receivedResolution official logs, written complaints, forwarded cases or ramp damage reports
- 2Complaint context assembledThe complaint, the channel it arrived on, the category it reads into and the year it falls in
- 3Report evidence draftedThe complaints categorised, the rationale on each borderline call, the gaps and completeness
- 4Controls appliedCategory checks, deduplication checks, deadline checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the compliance lane opens at the completeness gate.
Goes to the certifying officer to sign.
Adds a compliance read first.
Compliance review
The report is held with its complaints, its categories and the rationale behind each one.
Certify · Append evidence · Send to compliance
Certified — by a named officer
- 6Complaint and case records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedCategory accuracy, channel coverage, reviewer corrections and what the read found
Corrections
Each compliance correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Certifying the annual report under 14 CFR 382.157.
- Signing a tarmac report under 14 CFR 259.4(g)(3).
- Deciding a contact was an enquiry, not a complaint.
- Writing the precise cause of a tarmac delay.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Normalise each complaint out of whichever channel first received it.
- ✓Read each complaint into one type and one nature of it.
- ✓Reconcile the disability totals against the counts.
- ✓Track the January deadline and the thirty-day tarmac clock together.
Nothing is certified or filed except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.
- Judging that a report is true, correct and complete.
- Telling the DOT that a filing is in order.
- Setting the category a complaint is counted under.
- Changes to complaints, categories or report records.
Example output
One complaint, annotated
The officer affirms a report "prepared under my direction … true, correct, and complete"; this record is what one complaint carried into it.
Report evidence · single complaint
Illustrative example- Complaint
- Mishandled device, Part 382
- Recorded as
- Categorised as a mishandled device, rationale recorded
- Disability type
- Mobility disability
- Evidence of record
- Resolution official log, 3 August 2026
- Confidence
- Held uncertified
- Held for
- The officer who certifies the report
As received
Taken from the resolution official log and the ramp damage report — it reaches as far as those sources do.
What the record holds
- Intake log entry
- Ramp damage report
- Written response
Why no certification here
Whether the report is true and complete is an act reserved to the officer.
What the score decides
Below the configured threshold the report picks up a compliance read before the officer.
Action
CertifyAppend evidenceSend to complianceValue
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
Every complaint
From the channel that took it
Where the evidence is used
Our disruption and baggage agents answer what this passenger is owed; this page answers what the carrier must certify to the regulator about all of them, once a year.
Two reports, two clocks
14 CFR 382.157 falls due on the last Monday in January and is certified "true, correct, and complete"; 14 CFR 259.4(g)(1) runs thirty days per event and is signed "I, (Name) and (Title), of (Carrier Name)."
What was checked, and not found
The 28 October 2024 compliance date was not confirmed verbatim; 14 CFR 382.151 and 382.155 returned server errors twice and were not read; the scope of RIN 2105-AF36 is unpublished; and the family seating proposal was found dormant.
Build an evidence trail
The complaint, the category it was read into and the officer who certified stay on the report.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Complaint intake
- Airport logs
- web forms
- Email, phone and letters
Contact centre
- CRM
- case management
- Forwarded consumer cases
Ground and ramp
- Damage and handling reports
- Gate and station logs
Agent
Carrier reporting and certification
- Reads the complaints
- Assembles both reports
- Holds for the officer
Operations and filings
- ACARS and gate times
- BTS monthly submissions
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six sweeps between the model and the officer
Six sweeps across one period, and none of them alike. What both reports keep is drawn in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a report may stand
- L3
- Puts the certification in a person's hands
- L4 – L5
- Keep the complaint and the category behind it
- L6
- Leaves the report uncertified when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the report evidence that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the report the DOT reads
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the evidence record what each complaint was actually read into?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right channel, the right year and the live complaint record?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct complaint and the correct category?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence reports actually attract more compliance corrections?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific complaint categories?
- E6Business outcomeHow many reports needed a correction before the officer certified?
Floor — the report the carrier answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each placed at the stage where it starts.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- JZ-03
Stale complaint read
The case read is not the one now on the file.
Stage gathers
The contacts, the channels, the years and the dates
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- JZ-04
Category asserted, not shown
A complaint is placed in a category with no rationale.
- JZ-06
Vacated rule read as live
The ancillary fee rule is worked as though it stands.
Stage proposes
Contacts, their categories and completeness
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- JZ-02
Thin report passed forward
A report moves on without the compliance read.
- JZ-05
Counted twice across channels
One contact is logged as two separate complaints.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- JZ-01
Certified, rationale unrecorded
The report shows a certification but not what supported it.
Stage returns
The report an officer certifies and the DOT reads
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- JZ-07
Silent category regression
A configuration change moves the category, not the report.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, category rules and report fields
- Sev-1 · a report certified on no evidence
- Sev-2 · wrong evidence reaches the report
- Sev-3 · source fails, report holds uncertified
Affected slices
Mishandled devices absorb the corrections
A category-level classification-agreement figure can read clean while mishandled mobility devices carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by category, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mishandled mobility devices | 9.4% | 3.6× | Review | |
| Failure to provide assistance | 6.7% | 2.6× | Review | |
| Seating accommodation | 4.2% | 1.6× | Watch | |
| Service animal cases | 2.5% | 1.0× | Normal |
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. service-animal baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a missed category costs
The loop shuts when the miscategorised complaint is a regression case. That suite is what the next report closed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Correction rate rises on mishandled mobility devices.
- 02
Diagnose
The complaint that reached three channels and was counted in none of them is read back until one cause remains.
- 03
Improve
Any change goes out numbered, with the complaints that caused it attached.
- 04
Verify
One complaint case still failing is enough to hold the release back.
- 05
Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the certification record.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next reporting year 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, report assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Complaint-category discovery and boundary work.Week 1
- 02Intake, contact and ramp sources.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Complaint-to-category and deadline-clock mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Complaint and channel ingestion.Week 2
- 05Complaint, category and record binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Completeness scoring and review routing.Week 3
- 07Certifying officer signing workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Contact and case-system integration.Week 5
- 09Categorisation and period cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and certification controls.Week 4
- 11Complaint-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 carrier, one year | ProductionProduction reporting workflow | AdvancedMultiple carriers / entities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Report assembly to your complaints | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Certifying officer release | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Complaint-channel baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by category | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Certification workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Contact-channel integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-carrier groups | — | — | ✓ |
| Cross-year evidence packs | — | — | ✓ |
| Large complaint registers | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-report deadline controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, complaint volume, approval 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 intake channels and the complaints on each
→Channel inventory mapping and evidence capture
Week 102Representative complaint, intake and ramp records
→Record binding, category logic and the report baseline
Week 203Your category rules under 14 CFR 382.157
→Complaint mapping, category binding and the automation boundary
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Intake, case and ramp-source assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Reports you would not want certified
→Category cases and failure-mode testing
Week 406What no annual report may settle
→Completeness scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controls
Week 307A named officer to certify the report
→Certification workflow, 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
Read every bar as working weeks rather than as drawn space, which is why the fifth of them doubles up.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Reporting workflow discovery, category mapping and the automation boundary
W2Source integration and the complaint-channel baseline
W3Report assembly, category logic and release controls
W4Evaluation suite, category cases and failure-mode testing
W5Case integration, pilot reports and targeted corrections
W6One reporting year run under the certifying officer, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- A bar spans only the weeks the work under it is named for, and the fifth doubles because two phases land there.
- At the end of W6
- Once the reporting 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 · Travel & Hospitality AI agent
Build a reporting agent around the two filings a named officer has to sign.
Show us one complaint and the category it was read into. Which filings here does a person actually sign — only 14 CFR 382.157 once a year and 14 CFR 259.4(g)(3) per event, while Part 234 asks for none. Part 260 refund mechanics sit on the disruption page.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your complaints
- Named officer
- Two clocks
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Carrier reporting
AGT-TH-17 · Agent Care available after launch