The operating problem
A casework team checks whether an application has the required documents and prepares a review packet for an accountable official. The workflow is not simply a question-answering task: it requires a reliable relationship between business entities, current evidence, and the review responsibilities of staff.
Public service guidance and internal case information have different audiences, and document completeness does not determine eligibility. A useful initial scope therefore focuses on assembling the right context and making missing information visible. It avoids treating a generated answer as an approved business decision.
The proposed data foundation
Potential inputs include published procedures, application documents, case correspondence. Establish a source inventory before choosing connectors. For each input, record its owner, approved use, identifier conventions, update cadence, and retention requirements.
Preserve procedure versions, separate public and restricted sources, and represent missing information explicitly. The curated domain model centers on Service, Application, Required document, Procedure version. Keep raw source evidence separate from validated records and from the outputs prepared for a reviewer. This separation makes reconciliation and incident investigation more manageable.
AI and agent responsibilities
Retrieve approved service guidance and prepare cited answers. A permission-aware retrieval layer can assemble the relevant approved context. Extraction or generation should return structured drafts, source references, and unresolved questions; it should not silently supply facts that are absent from the records.
Check document completeness and assemble an administrative review packet. A second bounded responsibility can handle a related task while retaining the same identity and governance boundary. Multi-agent coordination is optional: use it only when separated responsibilities improve traceability or control.
Human review and exception paths
Eligibility, enforcement, and other consequential decisions remain with accountable officials. Missing documents, conflicting records, unavailable tools, and low-quality retrieval should lead to a visible exception. Define who can resolve each exception and what evidence must be retained with the decision.
How the scenario would be evaluated
Proposed evaluation areas: checklist accuracy, source-version correctness, access-boundary testing, and review packet completeness. Build a representative set containing normal cases, incomplete cases, outdated information, access restrictions, and tool failures. Compare the assisted workflow with the current process using the same acceptance criteria.
No percentage improvement, cost saving, or production result is asserted here. Any future benefit estimate should follow a measured baseline and a reviewed pilot, including the effort required to correct outputs and handle exceptions.
A focused next step
Agree one workflow, one accountable owner, a limited source set, and a review protocol. Use the first prototype to identify data gaps and operational changes, then decide whether additional integrations are justified.