Check country handbooks against group people policy
For: Head of people policy or HR compliance lead in a company with staff in many countries
The pain today
Each country has its own handbook and local policies, written at different times. Nobody can say where they contradict the group policy or each other until an employee dispute or an audit finds it.
The ask
“I attached our group people policies and the employee handbooks and local policies for every country. For each group rule, tell me what each country document says, where it is stricter, weaker, silent or contradicts the group rule, and show me the exact passages.”
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
- Group people policies
- Country employee handbooks
- Local policies and addenda
- List of group rules to check, if you have one
The unit of work
One worker task per one group rule in one country document.
Why a swarm fits
Each check needs one group rule and the matching sections of one handbook, nothing else. Rules and countries are independent, so the grid of checks runs side by side and only the reconciler sees the whole picture.
Not for
Deciding whether a local rule is lawful. That needs local employment counsel; the swarm only shows what the documents say.
The decision tree
6 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.
Planner, while planning
Scope checkYes or no, with a probability
Before work starts on a unit
Does this handbook section deal with the subject of the group rule it has been paired with?
Sees only: One group rule and the heading and opening lines of one handbook section
Why: Keeps workers off sections that cannot contain the rule, so reading effort goes where an answer can be.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenAccept
- No: below 0.30thenSkip this unit
Before workers, before a task runs
Small worker or strong modelYes or no, with a probability
Before a task runs
Is this handbook section plain single-language prose that can be compared with the group rule without following references to statutes or other documents?
Sees only: One handbook section
Why: Sends only cross-referenced or translated sections to the expensive model.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenEscalate to a strong model
- No: below 0.40thenEscalate to a strong model
After workers, the judge checks
Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability
After a worker answers
Does the quoted handbook passage set a rule that stands to the group rule as the worker reported: stricter, weaker, the same or contradicting?
Sees only: One group rule, the quoted handbook passage and the worker's grading
Why: Stops a misgraded cell from entering the rule by country grid.
- Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
- No: below 0.50thenReject and retry
Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability
After a worker answers
Given every section heading and the matched extracts, does this country handbook contain no passage that addresses the group rule?
Sees only: One group rule, the handbook's section headings and the extracts searched
Why: A false silent finding hides a rule that exists, so silence is checked as hard as a quote.
- Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenMark unresolved
- No: below 0.50thenReject and retry
Reconciler, while merging
Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability
While reconciling
Do these two passages from the same country's handbook and local policy give different answers on the same group rule?
Sees only: Two quoted passages from one country and the group rule they were matched to
Why: Keeps internal contradictions visible instead of letting the reconciler pick one.
- Yes: 0.70 or higherthenMark unresolved
- Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.70thenEscalate to a strong model
- No: below 0.30thenAccept
Accountable person, before anything is settled
Person decidesYes or no, with a probability
Before anything is reported as settled
Could this finding lead to a change in what employees in this country are entitled to or required to do?
Sees only: One grid cell with its quotes and grading
Why: Anything touching entitlements goes to the policy owner and local counsel before it is reported as settled.
Accountable: The policy owner and local employment counsel decide which version is correct and what gets rewritten.
- 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.
Planner
A strong reasoning model turns the group policy into checkable rules and maps handbook sections to them.
Decisions here:1. Scope check
Workers
Small fast workers from an open-weight family, one per rule and country, each quoting the passage it relies on.
Designed for 40 to 600 agents, one worker task per one group rule in one country document. Each worker receives only its own unit.
Decisions here:2. Small worker or strong model
Judge, from a different model family
A decision model from a different family asks whether the quoted passage supports the stricter, weaker or silent finding.
Decisions here:3. Evidence check4. Evidence check
Reconciler
A strong reasoning model builds the rule by country grid and keeps unresolved contradictions open.
Decisions here:5. Conflict check
Accountable person
The policy owner and local employment counsel decide which version is correct and what gets rewritten.
Decisions here:6. Person decides
Checked before anything is accepted
- Every finding carries a verbatim quote and section reference from the handbook
- Silent findings are rechecked by a second worker with a wider section scope
- Translated documents are marked so a native reader confirms the passage
- The judge rejects findings where the quote does not match the claim
What comes back
- Rule by country grid: aligned, stricter, weaker, silent or contradicts
- Quoted passages behind every cell
- Open contradictions listed for legal review
- Documents that could not be mapped to any rule
What to measure
- Share of findings the policy owner confirms on review
- Reviewer hours per country handbook
- Contradictions found later that the run missed
- Cost per checked rule and country pair
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 useMore in HR and people
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.
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.
Stress-test payroll rules drawn from collective agreements
For: Payroll manager or labour relations lead configuring pay rules from collective agreements
Overtime, shift premiums and allowances are configured from long collective agreements.