Public records request software where the agents propose, a second agent argues for release, and the records officer approves every release
Every withheld line cites its law, and every release goes out before the clock runs.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Public records request software that takes FOIA and state open records requests from intake to release, with each withholding cited by law. Seven agents classify the request and count its clock, draft narrowings, hold and search every department, propose each withholding with its statute, reason and harm, argue against every withholding and draft the letter. The records officer approves every message and every release.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Every records request starts a legal clock. Before anything goes out, the records unit has to count business days and holidays, narrow a request that is too broad, find every responsive record across departments, decide line by line what to withhold, cite the exemption for each withholding, work out the fee and write a letter that can survive an appeal. In most offices that means a portal that tracks the request, emails to department liaisons, a shared drive and a PDF redaction tool.
The risk sits in the withholdings. A black box with “(b)(6)” typed beside it is a label, not a reason: the foreseeable-harm statement is missing, a name already read into the public record gets redacted again, a box covers more than the private detail. Over-redaction is found on appeal, and a missed deadline costs the right to charge search fees. Meanwhile retention schedules keep deleting records while the request is open.
Estimated split for a mid-size request of a few hundred pages, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents classify, narrow, search, stamp, challenge and draft; the records officer approves every release.
On Thursday 17 September, Jordan Pike, a reporter at The Brannock Falls Ledger, asks the City of Brannock Falls for its 2025 police overtime records. Seven agents do the legwork in plain sight: each shows what it read and proposes the next step, and Dana Whitfield, the records officer, approves, edits, sends back or asks why. Here is how it runs, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dana's queue shows 28 open requests across 19 departments: 6 due in 2 business days, 1 past due, 4 ready to release and 93.6% answered on time this year. Each row carries its clock bar. “Needs you today” puts R-2026-1187, the police overtime request, at 2 days left: release ready, approve today.
Agents at work: “Challenge agent — R-2026-1187: lifted 9 stamps on names already public.”
The intake agent read the 3 items that came in overnight and names what each one is before anyone answers it. An email from Marlowe & Finch LLP is a subpoena duces tecum in Case No. CV-26-04418, where the City is a party. The agent proposes routing it to the City Attorney's litigation team, where Helen Osei is the attorney on the case, instead of the records queue.
“Its date is set by the subpoena, not the Open Records Code. Answering it as a records request would apply the wrong rules.”
Jordan Pike asks for the overtime paid to police officers in 2025, the 50 highest earners with their hours and pay, and command staff emails about the overtime budget. A minute later the intake agent has classified it under the Open Records Code: news media, 3 items, due Fri 16 Oct. Mon 12 Oct, a city holiday, is counted out. The fee is $0.00.
As the letter will say: “We received your request on September 17, 2026, and are responding on or before October 16, 2026, within the 20 business days the Open Records Code allows.”
“Any emails among command staff” could mean thousands of messages. The clarification agent drafts a narrowing to six custodians — the Chief of Police, two Deputy Chiefs and three Patrol Captains — for 2025, with the terms “overtime”, “OT budget” and “callback”: about 88 pages instead of about 6,400. Dana approves it at 09:14 and Jordan Pike agrees on Tue 22 Sep. It is recorded as narrowing attempt 1 of 3.
“Agents draft; nothing is sent without a person's approval.”
At 09:20 on day 1 the search agent puts hold H-2026-0412 on 5 sources in 4 departments, suspending retention deletion. Once Dana approves the six-step plan, it searches the payroll overtime register, police shift and callback rosters, the six custodians' email, budget memos and the overtime policy: 1,206 hits, 188 unique documents, 342 pages. Liaisons such as Sgt. Luis Ortega confirm each source is complete.
Gaps, said plainly: “No text messages. City phones keep messages for 30 days; none from 2025 survive for the 6 custodians.”
The review agent proposes 35 withholdings: 31 under (b)(6) personal privacy — officer names in memos and email, home addresses, personal phone numbers, medical or family-leave reasons, family members' names — and 4 under (b)(7)(C), the names and assignments of two officers on the narcotics task force. Each shows the statute, the reason, the foreseeable harm, a confidence and the sources it read. Nothing is applied until a person accepts it.
The review agent never applies a stamp, and never withholds a page in full when part of it can be released.
The challenge agent tests all 35: is the harm stated, is it already public, is the box wider than the private detail? It lifts 9 officer names read into the council minutes of the 10 Mar 2026 budget hearing, narrows 2 boxes that covered releasable callback hours, sends 3 back because they said only “privacy”, and upholds 21. Dana asks why the 9 were lifted, and gets the answer with its source.
The challenge agent never removes a stamp itself: Marcus Bell, records analyst, confirmed each lift.
Helen Osei clears the 4 (b)(7)(C) withholdings at 16:05. The letter agent drafts the response from the 26 remaining stamps: 320 pages in full, 22 in part, none withheld in full, the gaps in the search, the fee and the right to appeal within 90 days. Its checks confirm every withholding in the index has a stamp and every stamp is in the index.
All 7 release gates are green: hold in place, plan approved, every stamp decided, challenge run, counsel cleared, letter drafted, fee set. Dana picks reason code REL-02, partial grant, confirms she has read the 26 withholdings, the challenge results and the letter, and signs. The 342 pages are Bates-numbered BFC-1187-0001 to BFC-1187-0342 and posted to Jordan Pike's portal account.
“I have read the 26 withholdings, the challenge results and the letter. I approve this release as Records Officer.”
The same overtime records were asked for in R-2026-0954 in March and R-2026-1102 in August. The release librarian proposes posting this release to the public library under City Code §2-610, with its 26 cited withholdings carried over. The posting waits for Dana's approval; nothing is published without it.
The same request, seen by the five people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents classify, narrow, search, stamp, challenge and draft; the records officer approves every release.
Reads each request from the portal, email or the front counter, names the instrument — a records request, or a subpoena or discovery request that goes to Legal — sets the fee category, splits the request into items, computes the clock from business days and holidays, and finds similar earlier requests.
Finds vague or overbroad items and drafts a narrowing message with the page and fee estimate for each option, records each attempt, and shows the effect of tolling the clock before the records officer approves.
Puts the responsive sources on hold first, then plans and runs the search across departments, de-duplicates by content and email thread, sends liaisons tasks for systems it cannot read, and reports what it did not find.
Proposes each withholding — the passage, exemption, statute, reason, foreseeable harm and confidence — and segregates the releasable text around it.
Argues for disclosure against every proposed withholding: is the harm stated, is it already public in the council minutes, the release library or the city website, is the box wider than the private detail, could more be segregated. It re-reviews appealed withholdings too.
Drafts the response letter from the stamps: what is released, what is withheld and why, the exemption index with Bates ranges, the fee, the 90-day appeal right and the ombudsman notice.
After release, writes the disclosure record, finds records asked for three or more times and proposes posting them, and feeds the challenge agent with what is already public.
Approves every message and release; counsel clears law-enforcement withholdings. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask in plain words, beside the work. The answer cites where it came from, and anything it drafts waits for your approval.
Why did the challenge lift 9 stamps on R-2026-1187?
The review agent had stamped 9 officer names in the budget memos and command staff email as (b)(6). The challenge agent found all 9 already public: the council minutes of the 10 Mar 2026 budget hearing, item 7, pp. 14–15, read the names and 2025 overtime earnings into the record. Information already in the public domain carries no foreseeable harm, so the stamps were lifted, and Marcus Bell confirmed each lift on 13 Oct.
Which requests are at risk of missing their deadline this week?
Three need attention: R-2026-1149 is already 1 business day past due, waiting on the body-camera system, which timed out at 09:05. R-2026-1176 (Millrace Park) is due today with review 62% done; an extension is proposed in Approvals, and it must be noticed today. R-2026-1187 is due Fri 16 Oct and is ready for your approval.
Draft the extension notice for R-2026-1176
Drafted. R-2026-1176 meets the unusual-circumstances test because it needs consultation with Procurement on the contract. The new due date would be Wed 28 Oct 2026. The notice tells the requester about the public records liaison and the state ombudsman. Nothing is sent until you approve it.
Is the police overtime release a rule-of-three record?
Yes. The same records were asked for in R-2026-0954 (March, budget memos), R-2026-1102 (August, Jan–Jun 2025) and now R-2026-1187 (the full year). City Code §2-610 says to post what is asked for three or more times. The release librarian has proposed posting it with the 26 cited withholdings; posting needs your approval after the release.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The law, clocks, exemptions, fees and thresholds are settings. Changes are versioned and logged, and the City Clerk approves them.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| The law you answer under | City of Brannock Falls Open Records Code (adopts 5 U.S.C. §552(b)) | Federal FOIA · California Public Records Act · New York FOIL · Texas Public Information Act |
| Response time | 20 business days | Business days, with the city's holidays counted out; add a holiday and every open due date is recomputed |
| Extension, unusual circumstances | 10 business days, once, with ombudsman notice | Set in business days |
| Tolling | Once, for a clarification | The clock can be tolled at most once |
| Challenge agent sends a stamp to a person below confidence | 0.80 | Set as a confidence score; stamps below it go to a person |
| Notify the owner / escalate to the City Clerk | 3 / 1 business days left | Set in business days left |
| Propose a narrowing when a request is estimated over | 1,000 pages | Set in pages |
| Counsel must clear | (b)(5), (b)(7)(A)–(F), and any page withheld in full | Set per exemption in the exemption library |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (DOJ Office of Information Policy, Summary of FY 2025 Annual FOIA Reports, July 2026 — 1,707,197 requests received; 32,059 administrative appeals, up 59%). Context: 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(8) on foreseeable harm and segregation; §552(a)(4)(A)(viii) on fees after a missed time limit. The City of Brannock Falls, its Open Records Code, The Brannock Falls Ledger and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Public records request software that takes FOIA and state open records requests from intake to release, with each withholding cited by law. Seven agents classify the request and count its clock, draft narrowings, hold and search every department, propose each withholding with its statute, reason and harm, argue against every withholding and draft the letter. The records officer approves every message and every release.
The intake agent computes the due date in business days with the city's holidays counted out, and every request shows its clock bar in the queue. The owner is notified at 3 business days left and the City Clerk at 1. An extension for unusual circumstances is drafted with the notice it needs, and tolling for a clarification is allowed only once.
A challenge agent argues for disclosure against every proposed withholding before release. It checks whether the harm is stated, whether the information is already public in council minutes, past releases or the city website, and whether the box is wider than the private detail. In the sample request it lifted 9 of 35, narrowed 2 and sent 3 back for a harm statement; a person confirmed each one.
Yes. Each stamp carries its exemption, statute, reason, foreseeable harm and sources, and the response letter's exemption index is drawn from the stamps, with Bates ranges. The letter's checks confirm that every withholding in the index has a stamp and every stamp is in the index.
Yes. The law you answer under is a setting that brings its clocks, exemptions and letter wording: federal FOIA, the California Public Records Act, New York's FOIL and the Texas Public Information Act are available alongside a city code that adopts the federal exemptions. Each exemption, clock and fee rule can be edited, versioned and approved by the City Clerk.
The intake agent names the instrument first. In the sample, a subpoena duces tecum in a case where the City is a party is recognised as compulsory process, not a records request, and the agent proposes routing it to the City Attorney's office instead of the records queue.
Yes. Agents propose. Apart from the automatic acknowledgement of receipt, they never send anything to a requester, and they never publish to the portal or library, apply or remove a stamp, toll a clock twice or close a request. The records officer approves every message and every release with a reason code, counsel clears law-enforcement withholdings, withholdings in full and appeals, and release stays locked until all seven gates are green.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your records law, exemptions, fee schedule, holidays, letter templates and a sample of past requests — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own requests first.
Every deadline met, and every page traced to the request it answers.
1-min demoLegal Intake & TriageRoutine questions answered in minutes; anything risky reaches a lawyer first.
1-min demoLegal Hold ManagementDisposal stopped before it happens, and a Rule 37(e) record verified every day.
1-min demoWe'll run Public Records Request Management on a sample of your own past requests, under your own records law.