Telecom AI agent · lawful intercept records
Lawful Intercept Records AI Agent
Track the plan against the organisation it actually describes — who holds the named role, whether the round-the-clock route answers, what the retention period says — and start the 90-day clock.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- A person files
- Plan-bound
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Keeps the plan current, never the intercept
In
- 01
A named role changes hands, and § 1.20003(b)(4)(i) puts a different name inside the filed plan.
- 02
A contact route is tested long before an agency needs it, seven days a week and 24 hours a day.
Reason
- 03
A plan is amended, and § 1.20005(a) runs a 90-day filing clock from that amendment.
- 04
A merger or a divestiture runs the same 90 days, and the clock does not wait on the personnel file.
- 05
An authorisation is presented, and § 1.20004 wants a record with every field it names.
Decide
- 06
A retention period is set by the carrier under § 1.20004(b), and the plan then describes it.
- 07
A compromise is discovered, and § 1.20003(c) reports it to the affected law enforcement agencies.
Out
- 08
A security question arises, and § 105 has reached only the switching premises since 20 November 2025.
- 09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
The agent assembles and keeps the plan current; a named senior officer or employee holds the role and files, the person overseeing an interception certifies that record, and the carrier answers.
Example workflow
One plan change, evidence to filing
- 1Plan change detectedDirectory record, on-call roster, an org change or a merger notice
- 2Plan sections assembledRole, contact route, authorisation control and retention, each tied to its § 1.20003 paragraph
- 3Amendment draftedThe named role, the contact details, the control as configured and the retention period
- 4Controls appliedCurrency checks, route checks, clock checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is filed at any of them — the agent is drafting, and the legal lane opens at the completeness gate.
Goes to the named senior officer to file.
Adds a regulatory counsel read first.
Legal review
The draft is held with its sections, its gaps and the clock still running.
File the amendment · Append evidence · Send to counsel
Filed — by a named senior officer
- 6Plan and case records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedClock margin, section coverage, counsel corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each counsel correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Enabling an interception, or any part of one.
- Filing the plan with the Commission.
- Certifying an interception record.
- Reading an authorisation as lawful.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Assemble each interception record to the fields §.
- ✓Test the round-the-clock route and log what actually answered.
- ✓Run the 90-day filing clock from the amendment date.
- ✓Read the filed plan against the organisation it now describes.
Nothing is filed or certified except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.
- Setting the retention period the plan describes.
- Telling an agency the contact route answers.
- Deciding that a compromise has occurred.
- Changes to plan sections or record fields.
Example output
One record, annotated
Our fraud and SIM-swap agent works subscriber fraud, a different lane; this is paperwork about an authorisation other people act on.
Record draft · single authorisation
Illustrative example- Authorisation
- Authorisation presented to the carrier
- Drafted as
- Every required field carried, none left empty
- Type
- Trap and trace
- Evidence of record
- Order intake and case file, 18 August 2026
- Confidence
- Held uncertified
- Held for
- The person overseeing it, in person
As received
Taken from the order intake and the case file — it reaches as far as those records do.
What the record holds
- Circuit and number refs
- Start date and time
- Officer and signer names
Why no certification here
The § 1.20004(a)(2) signature belongs to the person overseeing it.
What the score decides
Below the configured threshold the draft picks up a counsel read before certification.
Action
Certify the recordAppend evidenceSend to counselValue
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 record
From the authorisation presented
Where the plan sits beside
Our CPNI certification agent serves a rule that demands an officer under penalty of perjury; this one demands a named person and a filed plan.
A plan that names a person
§ 1.20003(a) appoints a senior officer or employee and § 1.20005(a) files the plan, so no sworn officer certification sits anywhere in Subpart Z.
What was found, and what was not
No CALEA enforcement was found across 2024 to 2026, § 1.20008 routes penalties through 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and these matters are frequently handled non-publicly.
Build an evidence trail
The record, the authorisation behind it and the person who oversaw it stay on the file.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Filing and contact
- CALEA Electronic Filing System
- Law enforcement contact route
Directory and roster systems
- HR record
- on-call roster
- Contact directory
- escalation
Authorisation records
- Order intake
- case file
- Circuit and number references
Agent
Lawful intercept records
- Reads the plan
- Assembles the record
- Holds for the named person
Case and ticket systems
- Case management
- ticketing
- Compromise reports
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 record
Six layers that tighten as they go inward. Whatever reaches the centre is described in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a draft may stand
- L3
- Puts the filing in a person's hands
- L4 – L5
- Keep the record and the authorisation behind it
- L6
- Holds the record incomplete when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole assembly — not only the record that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the record a person certifies
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the draft record the authorisation behind every field?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the current plan, the right paragraph and the live contact route?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct plan section and the correct record?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence drafts actually attract more counsel corrections?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific authorisation types?
- E6Business outcomeHow many drafts needed a correction before the named officer filed?
Floor — the outcome the carrier answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each set at the stage in the agent where it starts.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- IU-03
Stale contact route
The number read is not the one answering today.
Stage gathers
The plan, the roles, the routes and the records
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- IU-04
Role change read as HR
A different name never reaches the filed plan.
- IU-06
Clock started from the memo
The 90 days run from the plan amendment.
Stage proposes
The plan sections, their evidence and completeness
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- IU-02
Thin draft passed forward
A draft moves on without the counsel read.
- IU-05
Record field left empty
A field § 1.20004 names is missing.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- IU-01
Filed, amendment unrecorded
The record shows a filing but not what changed.
Stage returns
The plan a person files and the record it governs
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- IU-07
Silent plan regression
An org change moves the plan, not the record.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, plan sections and record fields
- Sev-1 · a filing leaves without a person
- Sev-2 · a wrong plan section reaches the file
- Sev-3 · source degrades, draft holds unfiled
Affected slices
One authorisation type absorbs the corrections
A type-level record-completeness figure can read clean while one authorisation type carries most of the corrections. Nestack reports the counsel-correction rate by authorisation type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title III interceptions | 7.0% | 3.6× | Review | |
| FISA authorisations | 4.9% | 2.6× | Review | |
| Trap and trace orders | 3.2% | 1.7× | Watch | |
| Pen register orders | 1.2% | 0.6× | Normal |
Bar: counsel-correction-rate lift vs. pen-register baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a stale contact route costs
A cycle closes when the stale contact route is a regression case. That suite is what the next plan filed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Counsel-correction rate rises in one authorisation type.
- 02
Diagnose
The twenty-four-hour number that rang through to somebody who left in March is read back until one cause remains.
- 03
Improve
Changes go out numbered, and the plan sections that drove them ride along.
- 04
Verify
One plan case still failing keeps the release where it is.
- 05
Learn
It joins the suite for good, and the filing rules move in the same commit.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next record 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, record assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Lawful-intercept discovery and boundary definition.Week 1
- 02Plan, directory and case sources.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Plan-currency and record-field coverage mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Authorisation record ingestion.Week 2
- 05Role, route and retention binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Completeness scoring and counsel routing.Week 3
- 07Named-officer filing workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Case and directory-system integration.Week 5
- 09Authorisation and record cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and record-signing controls.Week 4
- 11Record-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 authorisation type, one plan | ProductionProduction records workflow | AdvancedMultiple types / entities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Record drafting to your plan | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Named-person filing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Plan-currency baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by authorisation type | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Filing workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Case-management integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-entity filing duties | — | — | ✓ |
| Cross-type record packs | — | — | ✓ |
| High authorisation volume | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-agency contact controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom 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.
You bring
We build with it
01Your plan as filed and as configured
→Plan-section mapping and evidence capture
Week 102Representative authorisations and records
→Record-field binding and the draft baseline
Week 203Your named role and its contact route
→Plan mapping, role binding and the automation boundary
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Directory, case and order-intake assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Records you would not want certified
→Authorisation cases and failure testing
Week 406What no intercept record may contain
→Completeness scoring, counsel routing, guardrails and filing controls
Week 307A named senior officer to file
→Named-officer filing 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
Each band is the honest length of one phase in working weeks, and that is why a single week carries two.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Intercept-records discovery, plan mapping and the automation boundary
W2Source integration and the plan-currency baseline
W3Record assembly, clock logic and filing controls
W4Evaluation suite, authorisation cases and failure-mode testing
W5Case integration, pilot records and targeted corrections
W6One filing year run under the named senior officer, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- A bar reaches only across the weeks its own work is named in. Two of them share the fifth week, and that is real work.
- At the end of W6
- Once the plan record validates, Agent Care picks up the agent.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Telecom AI agent
Build a lawful intercept records agent around a plan that names a person.
Show us who holds the named role today and what your round-the-clock number reaches. The plan has to survive being read as a description of the carrier as it now stands, not as it stood. Changing that name amends the plan, and § 1.20005(a) then gives you 90 days.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your contact route
- A person files
- Plan-bound
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · lawful intercept records
AGT-TL-23 · Agent Care available after launch