Main site

Retail AI agent · Safety reporting

Product-Safety Reporting & Recall AI Agent

Normalise incident signals out of the channels you run, stamp the date each one was received, build the pattern per SKU, and hold the file for the safety officer who reports and signs.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Named officer
Receipt-dated
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Assembles the record, never the determination

In

  1. 01

    A contact lands in an inbound channel, and the agent stamps the date it was received and the person who took it.

  2. 02

    A warranty claim, a review or an insurer letter arrives, and it is normalised to one signal shape.

Reason

  1. 03

    A signal is tied to a SKU, a model and a date code, and kept with its source.

  2. 04

    A duplicate of one occurrence is merged on the incident, not on the customer.

  3. 05

    A pattern crosses a line you configured, and the cluster is raised with each receipt date.

Decide

  1. 06

    A clock opens on the first information, and immediately means within 24 hours.

  2. 07

    A report is drafted against the elements 16 CFR 1115.13 lists.

Out

  1. 08

    A recall is announced, and the corrective-action and effectiveness record stays on the file.

  2. 09

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

Product statement

The agent assembles; a named officer determines reportability, reports and signs, and 15 U.S.C. 2070 makes that exposure personal.

Example workflow

One signal, receipt to report

  1. 1Signal receivedContact ticket, warranty claim, review, insurer letter or store report
  2. 2Pattern assembledSignals grouped by SKU, model and date code, each with its receipt date and recipient
  3. 3Record draftedCluster, clocks, report elements and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedDeduplication on the incident, working-day clock checks, element completeness and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is reported at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the officer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the product safety officer.

Low confidence

Adds a product safety counsel read first.

Safety officer review

The file is held with its cluster, its receipt dates and the confidence.

Approve · Amend · Send to counsel

Approved — released for filing

  1. 6Safety file updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedSignal capture, clock accuracy, element completeness and post-report supplements

Amendments

Officer amendments are counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Determining that a product is reportable.
    • Reporting to CPSC or any other authority.
    • Signing the corrective action plan.
    • Setting the model and date-code scope of a recall.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Normalise incident signals out of the channels the business runs.
    • ✓Stamp a receipt date and a named recipient on each one.
    • ✓Group them per SKU, model and date code, with sources.
    • ✓Run the clocks on working days and track report elements for gaps.

    Assembly is a fact about the file. Reportability is the officer's, and so is the signature.

    • Judging which recipient could appreciate the significance.
    • Opening or justifying a 16 CFR 1115.14(d) investigation.
    • Wording, approving or issuing a recall notice.
  • Changes to signal, clock or escalation rules.

Example output

One incident cluster, annotated

What the agent records is attached to the signal it came from.

Safety-reporting output · single cluster

Illustrative example
Cluster
Portable heater cluster
What the record shows
Separate occurrences on one model, each dated the day it was received
Product
Model and date code
First signal on file
Contact centre ticket
Confidence
91%
Receipt
Dated before escalation

As received

Taken from the ticket, the claim and the letter as received — nothing here is characterised by the agent.

Signals recorded

  • Contact centre ticket
  • Warranty claim
  • Subrogation letter

Why the date code is here

Scope set wrong is not edited later; widening it is a second public notice.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the file picks up a counsel read before it reaches the officer.

Action

ApproveAmendSend 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

Every inbound signal

From the channels you run

03Assembly

Build the record from the signal

Draw on the tickets, claims and letters on file. A wrong report is supplemented under the same signature, and the log becomes discovery.

01Approved path

The clock starts on receipt

The firm is deemed to know what an employee able to appreciate it received, and the rule caps the time it takes to reach the chief executive.

02Human review

Send the read to the crossed lines

Customer service answers from the live order record and returns decides eligibility against the policy in force; this one aggregates what those answers reveal.

04

Build an evidence trail

The signal, the pattern it joined and the officer who reported stay on the record.

Integrations

Typical integrations

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

  • Contact and service desk

    • Zendesk
    • Salesforce
    • Gladly
    • Kustomer
    • Gorgias

  • Returns and warranty

    • Narvar
    • Loop
    • Returnly
    • Warranty claim systems

  • Reviews and marketplaces

    • Bazaarvoice
    • Yotpo
    • Amazon
    • Walmart feeds

Agent

Product-safety reporting

  • Dates the signal
  • Builds the pattern
  • Holds for the officer

  • Quality and PLM

    • ETQ
    • Sparta QMS
    • PLM incident records

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

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

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the report

Six sieves, coarsest first. What falls through every one is drawn in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull the agent back to assemble-only when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, clock-rule and escalation-configuration changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the signal, the receipt date, the cluster, the clock and what the officer was shown.Record
L3Officer approvalHold files for the named officer; it governs release, not whether the call was right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest the file against the element list and the clock rules; a failure returns it.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence files to a counsel read before the officer sees them.Require review
Model coreRecord assembled — cluster, receipt dates, clocks, elements and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a file may stand
L3
Puts the release in an officer's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the signal and the pattern behind it
L6
Holds the file at unreported when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the finished report.

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

Surface — the file the officer reads

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid each recorded signal match the ticket or claim it is filed against?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right channels, mappings and clock rules?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct SKU and the correct cluster?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence files actually attract more officer amendments?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific product lines and signals?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many files needed an amendment or a supplement after the report?

Floor — the outcome the officer answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, set at the lifecycle stage where each begins.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • GQ-03

      Ingest date used as receipt

      The date the agent loaded it stands in for the receipt date.

    Stage gathers

    Tickets, claims, reviews, letters and store reports

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • GQ-04

      One event counted twice

      Signals from one occurrence are deduplicated on the customer.

    • GQ-06

      Distinct events collapsed

      Separate occurrences merge because the free text matched.

    Stage proposes

    Cluster, receipt dates, clocks and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • GQ-02

      Calendar-day clock shown

      A clock runs on calendar days, not working days.

    • GQ-05

      Date code left off

      Models are grouped without their date codes.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • GQ-01

      Signal missing from cluster

      A logged signal never joins the model it belongs to.

    Stage returns

    The file the officer reads and decides against

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • GQ-07

      Silent escalation regression

      A model or rule change narrows what is raised.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, clock rules and escalation config

  • Sev-1 · agent acts outside the boundary
  • Sev-2 · a wrong pattern reaches the officer
  • Sev-3 · source degrades, file routes to review
See the complete Retail & E-commerce failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

A clean total can hide one product line

A portfolio-level signal-capture figure can read well while one or two product lines carry nearly all of the missed signals. Nestack reports capture by product line, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Powered and heating goods9.7%3.7×Review
Free-text review signals7.6%2.9×Review
Marketplace seller reports4.3%1.6×Watch
Ticketed returns signals1.7%0.6×Normal

Bar: missed-signal lift vs. ticketed-returns baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

Each pass leaves one more case behind

A cycle closes when the late report is a regression case. That suite is what the next signal worked is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    The missed-signal rate rises in one product line.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The third caller that month, closed by a different agent each time, is read back until the cause narrows to one.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The change ships numbered, and the products that forced it ride with it.

  4. 04

    Verify

    Nothing releases while one touched signal case is still red.

  5. 05

    Learn

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

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. Detection next time starts from a suite that grew.

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, record assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

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

  1. 01Safety workflow discovery and boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02Channel, returns and warranty assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Signal mapping and escalation-rule configuration.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Signal ingestion and receipt dating.Week 2
  5. 05Cluster building and clock logic.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and escalation routing.Week 3
  7. 07Officer approval workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Contact-channel and quality integration.Week 5
  9. 09Signal and escalation cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and reporting controls.Week 4
  11. 11Signal-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 product lineProductionProduction safety systemsAdvancedMultiple markets / brands
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your channels and rules✓✓✓
Officer approval✓✓✓
Signal-capture baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by product line—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Contact-channel integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-regime clock rules——✓
Multi-stage safety approvals——✓
High signal volume——✓
Multi-market reporting controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction 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.

  1. 01Your inbound channels and ticket structure

    Signal ingestion and receipt-date mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative tickets, claims and letters

    Clustering baseline, source binding and clock computation

    Week 2

  3. 03Your escalation rules and named recipients

    Signal mapping and escalation-rule configuration

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Channel, returns and warranty assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Files you would not want dated

    Clock cases and failure-mode testing

    Week 4

  6. 06What no report may leave out

    Confidence scoring, escalation routing, guardrails and approval controls

    Week 3

  7. 07A named product safety officer to review files

    Officer approval 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

Band width on this chart is the weeks each phase truly costs, so the fifth carries a pair of them.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

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

Week focus

W1Safety workflow discovery, signal mapping and the automation boundary

W2Channel integration and the clustering baseline

W3Record assembly, clock logic and approval controls

W4Evaluation suite, clock checks and failure-mode testing

W5Quality-system integration, pilot clusters and targeted corrections

W6One reporting cycle run under the safety officer, then Agent Care handover

Reading the band
A bar spans the weeks its work is named in, and no others. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6
Validation closes on live signals, and Agent Care picks up the watch.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Retail AI agent

Build a safety-reporting agent around your inbound channels.

Show us your channels, your escalation path and who signs. If anything in your assortment can burn, cut, choke or shock, then the clock is already running on receipt, and the dated record is what your officer will be asked to produce.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your service and claims data
Named officer
Receipt-dated
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Product-safety reporting

AGT-RT-16 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a safety-reporting agent

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

About you
Your signals

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