CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Review a draft people policy from five specialist angles

For: People policy lead preparing a new or revised policy for sign-off

Pattern: Specialist panelNeeds live modelsDesigned for 5 to 60 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

A draft hybrid work or travel policy goes round legal, payroll, safety, privacy and employee relations one after another. Each round is slow and the comments contradict each other.

The ask

“I attached our draft hybrid work policy, the existing policies it touches and our consultation obligations. Review it for employment law risk, payroll and tax effects, health and safety, data protection and consultation duties. Show me each concern with the draft text it refers to.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Draft policy
  • Existing policies it touches
  • Consultation and works council obligations
  • Checklists per specialist area, if you have them

The unit of work

One worker task per one draft section per specialist brief.

Why a swarm fits

Five briefs read the same sections with different checklists, and none needs the others' material. Sections are independent, so the panel runs in parallel instead of in sequence.

Not for

Replacing sign-off by counsel or the works council. It shortens the first review round; it approves nothing.

The decision tree

5 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Before workers, before a task runs

    Small worker or strong modelA choice among options

    Before a task runs

    Does this draft section contain anything the payroll and tax brief, the safety brief or the data protection brief would have to read?

    Sees only: One draft section and the one-line scope of each specialist brief

    Why: Each specialist reads only sections that can concern it, and dense sections get the stronger model.

    • Relevant to this briefthenAccept
    • Not relevant to this briefthenSkip this unit
    • Relevant and legally densethenEscalate to a strong model

  2. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the quoted draft sentence actually say what the specialist's concern claims it says about working location, hours, equipment or monitoring?

    Sees only: One specialist concern and the draft sentence it quotes

    Why: Reviewers lose trust fast when a concern misquotes the draft.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  3. Reconciler, while merging

    Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability

    While reconciling

    Does the draft sentence contradict the quoted sentence from the existing policy on the same subject?

    Sees only: One draft sentence and one sentence from an existing policy

    Why: Catches a new policy that silently overrides an old one.

    • Yes: 0.70 or higherthenMark unresolved
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.70thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.30thenAccept

  4. Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability

    While reconciling

    Do these two specialist concerns about the same draft sentence ask for changes that cannot both be made?

    Sees only: Two concerns from different briefs on one draft sentence

    Why: Contradicting advice is paired for the policy lead instead of being blended.

    • Yes: 0.70 or higherthenMark unresolved
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.70thenMark unresolved
    • No: below 0.30thenAccept

  5. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Does this concern bear on a consultation duty or on a change to employees' terms and conditions?

    Sees only: One accepted concern with its quotes

    Why: Counsel and employee representatives sign off on terms and consultation, as they do today.

    Accountable: The people policy lead owns the draft; counsel and employee representatives sign off as they do today.

    • Yes: 0.30 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.10 up to 0.30thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.10thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model writes each specialist brief and decides which sections each one must read.

  2. Workers

    Small fast workers from mixed families, one per section and brief, reporting only against their own checklist.

    Designed for 5 to 60 agents, one worker task per one draft section per specialist brief. Each worker receives only its own unit.

    Decisions here:1. Small worker or strong model

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family checks that each concern is tied to quoted draft text.

    Decisions here:2. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model merges concerns per section and shows where two specialists pull in opposite directions.

    Decisions here:3. Conflict check4. Conflict check

  5. Accountable person

    The people policy lead owns the draft; counsel and employee representatives sign off as they do today.

    Decisions here:5. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Each concern quotes the draft sentence it is about
  • Concerns that cite an existing policy quote that policy too
  • Contradicting concerns from two briefs are paired, not merged
  • Concerns without a text anchor are dropped and counted

What comes back

  • Concerns per section, grouped by specialist area
  • Pairs of concerns that contradict each other
  • Conflicts between the draft and existing policies
  • Questions for counsel and for employee representatives

What to measure

  • Share of concerns the human specialists keep
  • Concerns raised by human reviewers that the panel missed
  • Elapsed time of the first review round
  • Cost per draft reviewed

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in HR and people

Check country handbooks against group people policy

For: Head of people policy or HR compliance lead in a company with staff in many countries

Each country has its own handbook and local policies, written at different times.

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceNeeds scale6 decisionsDesigned for 40 to 600 agents

Check job descriptions against the levelling framework

For: Reward or organisation design lead maintaining a job architecture across functions

Hundreds of job descriptions drift from the levelling framework.

Pattern: Hierarchical decompositionNeeds scale6 decisionsDesigned for 30 to 500 agents

Watch employment law changes against local policies

For: HR compliance lead or employment counsel covering many jurisdictions

Statutory leave, notice, working time and whistleblowing rules change country by country.

Pattern: WatchtowerNeeds a connector5 decisionsDesigned for 20 to 400 agents