HR Audit Compliance Agent
When the auditor, the EEOC or a data-protection authority asks for evidence, the answer is already prepared: every HR audit step runs deterministically against the relevant statute, so the opening-meeting pack, the works-council logs, the GDPR records of processing and the pay-equity heatmap come from one source of truth. Continuous, real-time monitoring (live Equal-Pay index, whistleblower alerts) is handled by the Compliance Monitoring Agent.
Event-driven HR audit preparation: IDW PS 980 plus SOX 404 audit-readiness pack, works-council co-determination evidence, GDPR Article 30 ROPA export, AGG plus EEO disparate-impact heatmap.
Analyse your processA selection from over 5,000 projects in 25 years of software development
One deterministic HR audit pipeline, instead of five disconnected ones
The Agent validates the entire HR audit cycle - gender pay gap reporting, EEO-1 demographic distribution, disparate-impact analysis, whistleblower handling, employee-data privacy and CSRD own-workforce disclosures - against the underlying statute, regulation and standard. Every classification is deterministic: no generative AI decides a pay-equity outcome, a discrimination finding, a whistleblower conclusion or an audit-finding severity.
Outcome: Audit preparation shrinks from three to four weeks to under one week for a 5,000-employee group. Gender pay gap reporting, EEO-1 and CSRD disclosures all publish from the same single source of workforce truth. A GDPR data-protection impact assessment is produced in two hours rather than two weeks, the statutory whistleblower acknowledgement and feedback deadlines are met automatically, and pay-equity regression runs quarterly instead of annually - so an unjustified gap surfaces before it triggers a mandatory joint pay assessment. Recurring findings fall from 40% to under 5%.
The sixteen deterministic audit steps span every major regime - and precisely because each step is fixed by statute, regulation or standard, the whole pipeline is machine-reproducible and audit-defensible:
An HR audit finding is expensive: the average employee-data breach runs to USD 4.45 million, and a single discrimination or privacy failure adds regulator penalties of up to 4% of global turnover on top.
International HR audit and compliance does not run on one regulatory standard - it runs on five overlapping regimes at once across the UK, EU and US. A US-headquartered group with 5,000 employees might, in a single year, publish UK gender pay gap figures by the April deadline, file the US EEO-1 demographic return with the EEOC, run quarterly pay-equity regression, operate a whistleblower channel under the EU Directive, conduct GDPR impact assessments on its analytics, and tag CSRD own-workforce datapoints - each obligation sitting under a different statute, regulator and deadline. No single team can hold all of that in a spreadsheet.
What an HR audit failure costs
Every HR audit failure carries direct costs that compound fast across all three jurisdictions. In the US, IBM puts the average employee-data breach at USD 4.45 million, and that is before enforcement: EEOC consent decrees for systemic discrimination regularly run into the tens of millions (a USD 175 million Bank of America wage-discrimination settlement, a USD 17.5 million Walmart pay-equity settlement), OFCCP findings can mean debarment from federal contracts, and SEC whistleblower matters have included a USD 36 million JP Morgan retaliation settlement.
In the UK, the ICO can fine up to GBP 17.5 million or 4% of global turnover - Marriott and British Airways are recent precedents. EHRC investigations under the Equality Act 2010 carry uncapped Employment Tribunal claims and reputational exposure on the published-employers list, and failure to publish gender pay gap figures on time triggers a compliance investigation.
In the EU, GDPR enforcement reaches EUR 20 million or 4% of global turnover, with headline cases against Meta, Amazon and WhatsApp. Whistleblower Directive breaches trigger Member State sanctions including, in some countries, criminal liability for retaliation. CSRD assurance tightens from limited to reasonable from 2028, and an unjustified pay gap above 5% forces a joint pay assessment and corrective measures under the Pay Transparency Directive.
For the CHRO and the Audit Committee, recurring findings carry particular weight. Auditors and regulators treat a repeat finding as a material-weakness signal, because it points to an absence of effective remediation - itself a control deficiency. The ICAEW guidance, AICPA SOC 2 and PCAOB AS 2201 all require evidence of remediation effectiveness before a prior-period finding can be closed.
Why cross-jurisdictional audit needs sixteen steps, not eight
A single-jurisdiction HR audit takes eight to twelve steps; a cross-jurisdictional one needs sixteen, because the regimes overlap. The pipeline runs the UK gender pay gap calculation, the US EEO-1 return, pay-equity regression, disparate-impact testing, whistleblower intake with its statutory deadlines, the GDPR impact assessment and data-minimisation audit, the ISO 30414 metric set and the CSRD ESRS S1 datapoints - end to end.
A concrete cross-border example: a US-headquartered S&P 500 manufacturer with 5,000 employees - 3,200 across 14 US states, 1,200 in the UK and 600 in the EU. Its quarterly cycle includes a UK gender pay gap report, the US EEO-1 return, the OFCCP affirmative-action update, SOX 404 control testing across all four quarters, a twelve-month SOC 2 audit, CSRD reporting with the annual filing, a quarterly whistleblower summary to the Audit Committee and quarterly pay-equity regression. That produces twelve EEO-1 establishment reports, one consolidated UK gender pay gap report, four pay-equity regressions, a handful of whistleblower disclosures, the seventeen ESRS S1 datapoints and over sixty ISO 30414 metrics.
In the Decision Layer, twelve of the sixteen steps are rule-engine decisions - scope inventory, evidence-source mapping, the gender pay gap calculation, EEO-1 categorisation, impact-assessment triggers, ISO 30414 metrics, CSRD datapoint mapping and finding tracking. Two steps are AI-augmented: pay-equity regression and disparate-impact analysis, which surface patterns for human review without making any employment decision. The last two require human judgement - whistleblower substantiveness and remediation effectiveness, both decided by a Compliance Officer or Internal Auditor.
What sets HR audit apart from financial audit
Five HR-specific dimensions distinguish this Agent from generalised SOX-cycle audit support. First, pay-equity regression under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, the UK Equality Act and the EU Pay Transparency Directive’s 5% threshold. Second, disparate-impact analysis using the EEOC four-fifths rule and chi-square testing across hiring, promotion, termination and performance ratings. Third, whistleblower-channel operation under the EU Directive, with its acknowledgement and feedback deadlines and reversed burden of proof. Fourth, GDPR employee-data privacy with national derogations such as German works-council co-determination and French CSE consultation. Fifth, the CSRD ESRS S1 own-workforce disclosures, with assurance rising from limited to reasonable.
Pay equity has become the highest-stakes area precisely because the EU Pay Transparency Directive changes its character: an unjustified gap above 5% forces a mandatory joint pay assessment with employee representatives within six months, so residual gaps are no longer a private internal matter but a regulated obligation with employee-side leverage. Tools such as Trusaic, Syndio and OpenComp, alongside the established consultancies, now run regression quarterly rather than as an annual snapshot.
Edge cases: posted workers, multi-state employees, works councils, federal contractors
Posted workers under the EU Posted Workers Directive fall under host-state minimum-wage, working-time and paid-leave rules for postings beyond twelve months, so their gender pay gap attribution and pay-equity grouping depend on host-state status. US multi-state employees sit under federal Title VII and a patchwork of state agencies with differing protected-class definitions - California adds military and veteran status, New York adds domestic-violence victims - which means disparate-impact testing has to run per state, not just on a federal aggregate.
Works-council co-determination under the German Works Constitution Act, the French CSE rules, the Italian Statuto dei Lavoratori and the Dutch COR adds a layer above GDPR: any change to HR-monitoring or analytics technology requires works-council consultation before deployment. OFCCP federal-contractor obligations under Executive Order 11246, Section 503 and VEVRAA add an affirmative-action plan, protected-class statistical analysis and a Compliance Evaluation, including one-to-two-year applicant-data retention under the Internet Applicant rule.
Cross-system integration
The Agent integrates with the full global HR audit stack: Workday with Peakon Engagement for cloud-native HCM with EEO-1 cohorts and gender pay gap calculation, SAP SuccessFactors as an enterprise HRIS tied into S/4HANA Finance for SOX 404, Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM integrated with Oracle ERP for SOX evidence and ISO 30414 reporting, and ADP for market-leading payroll with benchmark-based pay equity. BambooHR, Lattice and Culture Amp serve the 100-to-2,500-employee mid-market; Personio Europe brings GDPR national-derogation rules pre-configured; Ceridian Dayforce, UKG, Sage People and Cornerstone OnDemand round out the HCM layer. For applicant tracking, Greenhouse, Lever and iCIMS handle EEO-1 self-identification and Internet Applicant retention. For whistleblower channels, NAVEX EthicsPoint, Convercent (now OneTrust), Whispli, WhistleB, SpeakUp and FaceUp provide confidential intake and case management. For audit case management, AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Drata, Vanta and Secureframe cover SOC 2, ISO 27001, the GDPR impact-assessment library and SOX 404 control testing. For pay-equity analytics, Visier, ChartHop, Crunchr, Syndio, OpenComp and Trusaic, alongside the established consultancies, run the regression and flag gaps above the 5% threshold.
Micro-Decision Table
Who decides in this agent?
15 decision steps, split by decider
Inventory which HR audits are in scope this period Which HR audit types apply this period? Entity classification fixes the answer: SOX 404 ICFR for SEC registrants and FTSE 350, SOC 2 Type II for service organisations, EEO-1 Component 1 at 100+ US employees, UK gender pay gap reporting at 250+ employees, a GDPR impact assessment for HR analytics, CSRD ESRS S1 for in-scope EU companies, and an OFCCP Compliance Evaluation for federal contractors. Rules Engine Auditor
Deterministic scope inventory driven by entity classification. SEC registration triggers SOX 404; 100-plus US employees trigger EEO-1 reporting; 250-plus UK employees trigger gender pay gap reporting under Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010; HR analytics on special-category data trigger a GDPR Article 35 impact assessment; federal contractors above USD 50k trigger an OFCCP Compliance Evaluation. Each threshold is a fixed rule, not a judgement call.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Map each audit requirement to its evidence source Which evidence source backs each in-scope requirement? The mapping is fixed: HRIS access controls draw on the Workday SOC 2 report and internal access reviews; EEO-1 draws on ATS self-identification and the HRIS demographic snapshot; the UK gender pay gap draws on mean and median hourly and bonus pay per the gov.uk methodology; a GDPR impact assessment draws on the Article 35(7) template; CSRD reporting draws on the ESRS S1 datapoints. Rules Engine Auditor
A deterministic mapping rule-engine ties each requirement to its evidence source: HRIS access controls map to the Workday SOC 2 report and internal access reviews; EEO-1 maps to ATS self-identification and the HRIS demographic snapshot; the UK gender pay gap maps to mean and median hourly and bonus pay per the gov.uk methodology; a GDPR impact assessment maps to the Article 35(7) seven-element template; CSRD reporting maps to the seventeen ESRS S1 datapoints.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Calculate the UK gender pay gap under the Equality Act 2010 For UK employers with 250+ employees, what are the six required figures - the mean and median hourly pay gaps, the mean and median bonus gaps, the proportion of men and women receiving a bonus, and the quartile pay-band distribution - measured on the 5 April snapshot date (31 March for the public sector)? Rules Engine Employee
The methodology is fixed by the Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations 2017. Identify relevant employees on the snapshot date, derive hourly pay from ordinary and bonus pay per the ACAS Code, then calculate the mean and median gap as the percentage difference relative to men's pay. Quartile bands come from ranking ordinary pay into four equal-headcount groups. Publication on the gov.uk service and the employer's own website follows by the statutory April deadline.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Employee
Calculate the US EEO-1 Component 1 demographic distribution For US employers with 100+ employees (or federal contractors with 50+ employees and a USD 50k+ contract), how does the workforce distribute across the EEO-1 matrix - the ten job categories from Executive/Senior Officials through to Service, by the seven race-ethnicity categories, by the two sex categories - taken from a single snapshot in the October-to-December reporting window? Rules Engine Auditor
Categorisation is fixed by 29 CFR Part 1602. Take a workforce snapshot for the chosen October-to-December pay period, classify each employee into one of the ten EEO-1 job categories per the Department of Labor occupational mapping, capture self-identified race-ethnicity and sex, then aggregate into the 140 cells of the matrix and submit via the EEOC portal by the annual deadline.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Run pay-equity regression for protected-class disparities Within job groups defined by similar work or work of equal value, what pay disparities remain by sex, race-ethnicity, age 40+ and disability once legitimate factors (job level, tenure, performance, location, education) are controlled for - and which residual gaps clear the EU Pay Transparency Directive's 5% threshold that triggers a joint pay assessment? AI Agent Employee
Multivariate regression identifies statistical pay disparities while controlling for legitimate factors such as job level, tenure, performance and location. Job groups are defined by the Equal Pay Act 'substantially equal work' test or the UK 'work of equal value' test. The AI outputs the residual gap and its statistical significance; the legal interpretation and remediation decision stay with a human. An unjustified gap above the EU Pay Transparency Directive's 5% threshold triggers a mandatory joint pay assessment within six months.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Employee
Test hiring, promotion, termination and ratings for disparate impact Over the audit period, do hiring, promotion, termination and performance-rating decisions show statistically significant disparate impact on a protected class (sex, race-ethnicity, age 40+, disability) under the EEOC four-fifths rule, or a chi-square test for larger samples? AI Agent Employee
AI-driven disparate-impact analysis applies the EEOC four-fifths rule and chi-square significance testing to surface hiring, promotion or termination decisions that disadvantage a protected group. The AI flags the pattern; the legal interpretation - under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in the US, or the Section 19 indirect-discrimination test under the UK Equality Act 2010 - remains a human judgement.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Employee
Operate the confidential whistleblower channel For each disclosure received, does it fall within a protected category (criminal offence, breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, a health-and-safety or environmental risk, financial fraud, a securities violation), and does it trigger the EU Whistleblower Directive's seven-day acknowledgement and three-month feedback deadlines? Rules Engine Employee
The EU Whistleblower Directive 2019/1937 and its national transpositions set deterministic rules: any internal disclosure triggers a seven-day acknowledgement to the discloser and a three-month feedback deadline, the channel operator keeps the identity confidential except under a court order, and the burden of proof in retaliation claims reverses onto the employer. The UK PIDA and US SOX 806 protections apply in parallel for the respective jurisdictions.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Employee
Investigate a substantive whistleblower disclosure On the initial intake, is the disclosure substantive - warranting a formal investigation with a case file, designated investigator, evidence preservation, witness interviews and written findings - or non-substantive (too little information, out of scope, already addressed)? And how independent must the investigation be: internal under the Compliance Officer, joint with Legal, or led by external counsel? Human Auditor
Human judgement is required to decide whether a disclosure is substantive and how independent the investigation must be. Insufficient reports are referred back to the discloser while preserving confidentiality; substantive ones get a formal investigation file, a litigation hold and, in the US, attorney-client privilege. High-severity matters such as executive misconduct or financial fraud escalate to the Audit Committee and external counsel.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - via manager, works council, or formal objection process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Run the GDPR Article 35 impact assessment for HR analytics For each HR-data processing activity - engagement survey, performance-rating algorithm, productivity monitoring, network-traffic analysis, video monitoring, biometric time-clock - does it meet the Article 35(1) high-risk criteria (or the EDPB Guidelines 4/2017 list) that require an impact assessment, and are the seven Article 35(7) elements documented? Rules Engine Auditor
GDPR Article 35(1) and EDPB Guidelines 4/2017 set the trigger criteria deterministically: large-scale processing of special-category data, systematic monitoring, profiling, automated decisions with legal effect, novel technology, biometric identification or processing data of vulnerable subjects. Where any apply, the impact assessment documents the Article 35(7) elements - systematic description, necessity and proportionality, risk assessment and mitigation - with DPO consultation where one is designated.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Audit employee-data minimisation under GDPR Article 88 Across the HR systems, are the personal-data fields collected held to the lawful-basis minimum, are retention periods in line with statutory and legitimate business needs (typically seven years post-termination for payroll, one to two years for unsuccessful candidates, indefinite for pension recipients), and is access limited to need-to-know roles? AI Agent Employee
An automated audit scans HRIS field configurations, ATS retention rules and access-control lists against the lawful-basis register, surfacing fields with no lawful basis (a birth date where age is irrelevant, marital status outside a benefits context, photographs in evaluation systems), expired retention and over-broad access roles. The remediation decision - delete, restrict or re-time - stays with a human.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Employee
Generate the ISO 30414 HR reporting metrics For ISO 30414:2018 reporting, what are the values across the 60-plus metrics in eleven areas - compliance and ethics, costs, diversity, leadership, organisational culture, health and safety, productivity, recruitment, skills, succession planning and workforce availability - each measured by its standard formula (revenue per FTE, time to hire, training hours per FTE, succession coverage of critical roles and so on)? Rules Engine Auditor
ISO 30414:2018 gives each metric a standardised formula. Values are taken on an annual snapshot date and aggregated across the HRIS, ATS, LMS, engagement-survey and payroll outputs, then compared against peer benchmarks. The SEC has cited ISO 30414 as a human-capital disclosure framework under Regulation S-K Item 101(c)(2)(ii).
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Compile the CSRD ESRS S1 own-workforce disclosures For ESRS S1 own-workforce reporting (phased from 2024 through 2028), what are the values for the seventeen mandatory datapoints and narrative disclosures - workforce characteristics, collective-bargaining coverage, working time, fair remuneration, social protection, health-and-safety incidents, training and development, the gender pay gap and gender ratio, incidents of discrimination - plus any further datapoints the materiality assessment brings into scope? Rules Engine Auditor
ESRS S1 application follows the EFRAG Implementation Guidance: each datapoint has a fixed reporting format, and a double-materiality assessment determines which datapoints beyond the seventeen mandatory ones apply. Reports are tagged in ESEF iXBRL format, with auditor assurance rising from limited to reasonable under Article 34 CSRD. Scope is staged from FY2024 for the largest companies through to non-EU groups with an EU subsidiary in FY2028.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Track findings, assign owners and escalate overdue items For each finding - from internal audit, external audit, a regulator inspection or a self-identified control gap - what is its severity (critical, high, medium or low), who owns the remediation (HR business partner, HRIS owner, compliance officer, payroll lead), what is the target deadline (typically 30, 90, 180 or 365 days by severity), and where does it escalate if the deadline is breached? Rules Engine Auditor
Finding intake, owner assignment and deadline calculation are deterministic, set by the remediation policy. Severity follows the COSO deficiency hierarchy - control deficiency, significant deficiency and material weakness for ICFR, or minor finding through non-conformity for ISO and SOC 2. An overdue deadline escalates automatically to the next management level, and the external auditor verifies completion at the next cycle.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Verify that remediation actually fixed the root cause For each closed finding, does the remediation address the root cause rather than the symptom, is the redesigned control operating effectively (no exceptions in later sample testing), and is the evidence package strong enough for the external auditor to re-review without re-issuing the finding? Human Auditor
Internal audit or a compliance officer must verify the fix in person: root-cause analysis, a review of the redesigned control, exception-sample testing of later transactions and a walkthrough re-performance to confirm the process actually changed. A weak fix - a procedural patch without control redesign, or training without process change - produces a recurring finding next cycle. PCAOB AS 2201 requires remediated controls to be re-tested in the following audit period.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - via manager, works council, or formal objection process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Generate the audit-readiness dashboard for management For management reporting, what is the consolidated audit-readiness status - broken down by audit type (SOX 404, SOC 2, EEO-1, gender pay gap, GDPR impact assessment, CSRD ESRS S1, ISO 27001), by control area (access, change, segregation of duties, and the payroll, hiring, performance and termination cycles), by jurisdiction (UK, US, EU Member State), and by remediation deadline (overdue, due this quarter, on track)? AI Agent Auditor
The dashboard aggregates the audit-management workflow, finding tracker, control-test results and remediation status. The AI surfaces deteriorating risk trends - a rising finding count, longer average remediation, recurring patterns - and feeds Audit Committee and, for SEC registrants, Disclosure Committee reporting on the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification cycle.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Decision Record and Right to Challenge
Every decision this agent makes or prepares is documented in a complete decision record. Affected employees can review, understand, and challenge every individual decision.
Does this agent fit your process?
We analyse your specific HR process and show how this agent fits into your system landscape. 30 minutes, no preparation needed.
Analyse your processGovernance Notes
Assessment
Prerequisites
- Cloud HCM with API access: Workday HCM, SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central, Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM, ADP Workforce Now, BambooHR, Personio Europe, Ceridian Dayforce, UKG Pro, Sage People, Cornerstone OnDemand - with full per-employee record access including hire date, termination date, pay history, performance history, demographic self-identification (where lawfully collected), job code, location, manager hierarchy
- ATS integration with Greenhouse, Lever, iCIMS Talent Cloud for EEO-1 candidate self-identification capture per 41 CFR 60-1.12 OFCCP Internet Applicant rule retention plus structured-interview kits for bias-mitigation evidence packet
- Whistleblower channel platform: NAVEX EthicsPoint, Convercent (now OneTrust), Whispli, WhistleB, SpeakUp, FaceUp - with confidential intake plus anonymised reporting plus 7-day acknowledgement workflow plus 3-month feedback workflow plus case-management for substantive disclosures plus regulatory-reporting integration for SEC Office of Whistleblower plus OSHA Whistleblower Programs plus FCA Senior Manager Conduct rules
- Engagement-survey platform: Workday Peakon, Culture Amp, Lattice, Glint (Microsoft Viva), Qualtrics EX, SurveyMonkey Engage - with 5+ respondent threshold for individual non-identifiability per GDPR Article 88 employee-data minimisation, plus drill-down by group with N>=5, plus eNPS plus engagement-score plus inclusion-score data feeds
- Pay equity analytics: Visier People, ChartHop, Crunchr, Syndio, OpenComp, Trusaic, plus traditional Mercer/Aon/WTW consulting models - with multivariate regression supporting Equal Pay Act job-group definition, similarly-situated worker controls, residual gap calculation by sex, race-ethnicity, age 40+, disability, plus EU Pay Transparency Directive 5% unjustified-gap threshold flagging
- Audit case-management workflow: AuditBoard, Hyperproof, Drata, Vanta, Secureframe - for SOC 2 Type II evidence collection, ISO 27001 ISMS workflow, GDPR DPIA library, plus SOX 404 control-test plus finding-tracking plus remediation-deadline plus auditor-portal integration
- Document Management System with audit retention rules: SharePoint plus Microsoft Purview, Google Workspace Vault, OpenText Content Server, M-Files, Box - with retention rules implementing IRC Section 6501 4-year US, HMRC 6-year UK, EU Member State 6-10 years, PCAOB AS 1215 7-year retention for issuer audits
What this assessment contains: 9 slides for your leadership team
Personalised with your numbers. Generated in 2 minutes directly in your browser. No upload, no login.
- 1
Title slide - Process name, decision points, automation potential
- 2
Executive summary - FTE freed, cost per transaction before/after, break-even date, cost of waiting
- 3
Current state - Transaction volume, error costs, growth scenario with FTE comparison
- 4
Solution architecture - Human - rules engine - AI agent with specific decision points
- 5
Governance - EU AI Act, works council, audit trail - with traffic light status
- 6
Risk analysis - 5 risks with likelihood, impact and mitigation
- 7
Roadmap - 3-phase plan with concrete calendar dates and Go/No-Go
- 8
Business case - 3-scenario comparison (do nothing/hire/automate) plus 3×3 sensitivity matrix
- 9
Discussion proposal - Concrete next steps with timeline and responsibilities
Includes: 3-scenario comparison
Do nothing vs. new hire vs. automation - with your salary level, your error rate and your growth plan. The one slide your CFO wants to see first.
Show calculation methodology
Hourly rate: Annual salary (your input) × 1.3 employer burden ÷ 1,720 annual work hours
Savings: Transactions × 12 × automation rate × minutes/transaction × hourly rate × economic factor
Quality ROI: Error reduction × transactions × 12 × EUR 260/error (APQC Open Standards Benchmarking)
FTE: Saved hours ÷ 1,720 annual work hours
Break-Even: Benchmark investment ÷ monthly combined savings (efficiency + quality)
New hire: Annual salary × 1.3 + EUR 12,000 recruiting per FTE
All data stays in your browser. Nothing is transmitted to any server.
HR Audit Compliance Agent
Initial assessment for your leadership team
A thorough initial assessment in 2 minutes - with your numbers, your risk profile and industry benchmarks. No vendor logo, no sales pitch.
All data stays in your browser. Nothing is transmitted.
Related Pages
Related Agents
HR Expense Self-Service Agent
HR expense self-service workflow with employee submission, OCR receipt capture, multi-step manager hierarchy approval and mandatory field validation before finance handover - the HR operations layer for employee expenses. Travel expense tax detail (IRS Pub 463, HMRC EIM, EU VAT recovery) handled by the Travel Expense Tax Agent. Entertainment 50% deduction in the Entertainment Expense Agent.
HR Vendor Invoice Agent
HR vendor invoice workflow for recruiting agencies (LinkedIn Recruiter, Indeed, headhunter retainer and success fees), training providers and benefits brokers (401(k), health insurance carriers) with HR cost-center allocation per req, role and department and a works-council relevance check for IT system co-determination. General AP invoice capture (PEPPOL, eInvoice, IRS retention) handled by the Invoice Capture Agent.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the Agent calculate the UK gender pay gap per Section 78 Equality Act 2010 plus the Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations 2017 with the 4 April annual publication deadline on the gov.uk service?
How does the Agent handle US EEO-1 Component 1 reporting under EEOC 29 CFR Part 1602 with 10 EEO-1 job categories times 7 race-ethnicity categories times 2 sex categories?
How does the Agent run pay-equity regression across the US Equal Pay Act, UK Equality Act and the EU Pay Transparency Directive's 5% threshold?
How does the Agent operate the confidential whistleblower channel under the EU Whistleblower Directive, UK PIDA and US SOX 806?
How does the Agent handle GDPR Article 35 DPIA for HR analytics, performance monitoring, and employee surveillance plus Article 88 employee-data minimisation across HRIS, ATS, performance system, learning system?
How does the Agent compile CSRD ESRS S1 Own Workforce disclosures plus ISO 30414 HR Reporting metrics for SEC human capital disclosure under Regulation S-K Item 101(c)(2)(ii)?
How does the Agent integrate with Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, Oracle HCM Cloud, ADP, BambooHR, Personio, plus AuditBoard, Drata, Vanta for HR audit case management?
What Happens Next?
30 minutes
Initial call
We analyse your process and identify the optimal starting point.
1 week
Discover
Mapping your decision logic. Rule sets documented, Decision Layer designed.
3-4 weeks
Build
Production agent in your infrastructure. Governance, audit trail, cert-ready from day 1.
12-18 months
Self-sufficient
Full access to source code, prompts and rule versions. No vendor lock-in.
Implement This Agent?
We assess your process landscape and show how this agent fits into your infrastructure.