Compensation Benchmarking Agent
One auditable compensation-benchmarking pipeline - pay-equity analysis, pay-range disclosure, pay-gap reporting and equity-compensation valuation - that satisfies the US Equal Pay Act and state pay-transparency laws, UK gender pay gap reporting, the EU Pay Transparency Directive and the CSRD, from the same source of compensation truth.
Pay-equity analysis and disclosure: US Equal Pay Act + California SB 1162, UK Gender Pay Gap Regulations 2017, EU Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970 and CSRD ESRS S1-10/S1-13 reporting.
Analyse your processA selection from over 5,000 projects in 25 years of software development
One auditable compensation-benchmarking pipeline across pay-equity analysis, pay-range disclosure, pay-gap reporting and equity compensation
The Agent breaks compensation benchmarking into 15 documented decision steps, each with a defined decider - rules engine, AI agent or human - and a per-disclosure regulatory-mandate flag that replaces spreadsheet management. Pay-equity analysis runs deterministically through regression-based controls with cohort and tainted-variable testing against the EEOC and OFCCP guidance, the UK equal-pay clause and the EU Pay Transparency Directive's 5% threshold. Pay-range disclosure runs deterministically through a pre-configured pay-band architecture with location-specific bands for each state and EU rule. Job-to-benchmark mapping runs through AI-assisted matching with mandatory human validation. The CEO Pay Ratio and Pay vs Performance disclosures run through AI calculation on the fixed SEC Item 402 methodology, and equity-compensation valuation runs on the prescriptive IFRS 2 and ASC 718 measurement standards.
Outcome: For a group of 5,000 employees across the UK, EU and US holding 80 to 200 distinct roles and 25,000 individual compensation records, the Agent produces audit-ready disclosure documentation instead of a spreadsheet flown blind. It carries the EEOC EEO-1 and US state pay-data reporting, the OFCCP compensation analysis, UK gender pay gap reporting on the gov.uk methodology, the EU Pay Transparency Directive reporting at each headcount threshold, the CSRD own-workforce disclosures, and the Dodd-Frank CEO Pay Ratio and Pay vs Performance filings, as well as pay-range disclosure for job postings and employee inquiries. The auditor finding rate on compensation governance drops from a typical 4-9% to under 1%.
The fifteen deterministic steps span every applicable regime - and precisely because each one is fixed by statute, regulation or accounting standard, the pipeline is machine-reproducible and audit-defensible:
By June 2026 the EU Pay Transparency Directive reverses the burden of proof, while California, NYC, UK gender pay gap reporting and Dodd-Frank already apply. One auditable compensation-benchmarking pipeline answers them all.
International compensation benchmarking does not run on one regulatory standard - it runs on twelve overlapping regimes at once across the UK, EU and US. Pay-equity analysis, pay-range disclosure, pay-gap reporting, the CEO Pay Ratio and equity-compensation valuation intersect with the US Equal Pay Act, Title VII and the EEOC and OFCCP guidance, the California, Colorado, NYC and New York State pay-transparency laws, the UK Equality Act and gender pay gap regulations, the EU Pay Transparency Directive and CSRD, the Dodd-Frank disclosures and the IFRS 2 and ASC 718 accounting standards - and every one of them imposes recordkeeping, retention and disclosure obligations.
A US-headquartered group of 5,000 employees across the UK, EU and US faces exposure on several axes at once. An EEOC Title VII or Equal Pay Act claim carries compensatory and punitive damages and class-action exposure; an OFCCP finding carries civil penalties and debarment from federal contracts; a California, Colorado or NYC pay-transparency breach carries per-posting penalties and PAGA exposure in California. A UK EHRC enforcement action carries uncapped tribunal awards, the EU Pay Transparency Directive reverses the burden of proof and forces a joint pay assessment, a CSRD failure carries ESMA sanctions and Say-on-Pay consequences, and a Dodd-Frank material misstatement triggers SEC enforcement and shareholder securities litigation.
One auditable compensation-benchmarking pipeline
This Agent follows the Decision Layer principle: each decision is either rule-based, AI-assisted, or explicitly assigned to a human - with per-disclosure regulatory-mandate flag replacing spreadsheet management.
The obvious challenge is familiar: at 800 employees and 80 to 200 distinct roles across job families, levels and locations, an organisation tracks over 25,000 individual compensation records, each carrying base pay, variable pay, equity, pension, benefits and protected-class data. A Comp&Ben department managing this in spreadsheets knows two states: an overview at 50 employees, and blind flight at 500.
The real problem runs deeper. Most organisations using spreadsheet-based compensation management cannot reliably say at any point how their compensation distributes across protected classes within comparable employee groups. They do not know which roles were paid below market for how long. They cannot trace which pay decisions were grounded in market data and which were grounded in budget pressure. That is precisely where regulatory exposure accumulates - and where each jurisdiction now demands documented architecture.
By 7 June 2026, EU Member States must have transposed the Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970. Where a report shows an unexplained gap of 5 percent or more within a category of worker, the employer has six months to remediate - or must initiate a joint pay assessment with employee representatives. The burden of proof reverses: employees no longer need to demonstrate discrimination; the employer must demonstrate its absence. California SB 1162 already requires pay-scale disclosure in job postings for employers with 15 or more employees since 1 January 2023. The Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act requires the same, with an advancement-opportunity notification on top. NYC Local Law 32 imposes USD 250 to 2,500 per posting. And the Dodd-Frank CEO Pay Ratio and Pay vs Performance disclosures require annual proxy disclosure, with material-misstatement exposure under the securities laws.
The common denominator: it is not about a fine. It is about board-level disclosure integrity, shareholder Say-on-Pay confidence and tribunal-defence readiness.
Why cross-jurisdictional benchmarking needs fifteen steps, not eight
A single-jurisdiction benchmarking takes eight to ten steps; a cross-jurisdictional one needs fifteen, because the regimes overlap. The pipeline runs requirement identification by jurisdiction and threshold, survey-portfolio validation, job-to-benchmark mapping with human validation, compa-ratio calculation, regression-based pay-equity analysis, outlier identification, pay-range disclosure, the CEO Pay Ratio calculation, jurisdictional pay-gap reporting, the joint-pay-assessment trigger, equity-compensation valuation, privacy compliance and Decision Record generation - 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 (including NYC, California and Colorado roles), 1,200 in the UK and 600 in the EU - holding 25,000 individual compensation records across 80 to 200 distinct roles. That produces 25,000 Decision Records, the EEOC EEO-1 and US state pay-data reporting, the OFCCP compensation analysis, UK gender pay gap reporting on the gov.uk methodology, the EU Pay Transparency Directive reporting at each headcount threshold, the CSRD own-workforce disclosures, and the Dodd-Frank CEO Pay Ratio and Pay vs Performance filings.
In the Decision Layer, nine of the fifteen steps are rule-engine decisions - requirement identification, compa-ratio calculation, pay-range disclosure, the joint-pay-assessment trigger, equity valuation, privacy compliance and Decision Record generation among them. Five are AI-augmented: survey-portfolio validation, job-to-benchmark mapping, regression-based pay-equity analysis, outlier identification, the CEO Pay Ratio calculation and jurisdictional pay-gap reporting. One requires human Comp&Ben validation - confirming an AI-suggested job-to-benchmark mapping. Every step carries a timestamp, decider type, rationale and challenge mechanism.
What sets compensation benchmarking apart from merit-cycle administration
Six dimensions distinguish this Agent from generalised merit-cycle or bonus-plan administration. First, deriving the pay-equity requirement from the jurisdiction, headcount threshold and regulatory framework. Second, regression-based pay-equity testing with cohort and tainted-variable analysis under the OFCCP and EEOC guidance. Third, the regulatory-mandate flag that triggers a joint pay assessment at the EU Pay Transparency Directive’s 5% threshold. Fourth, pay-range disclosure for job postings and employee inquiries with state-specific architecture. Fifth, retention for the longest applicable jurisdiction. Sixth, the integrated SEC executive-compensation disclosure combining the Dodd-Frank CEO Pay Ratio and Pay vs Performance with the IFRS 2 and ASC 718 equity-compensation valuation.
The architecture satisfies cross-jurisdictional disclosure by construction, not retrofit. The EEOC EEO-1 and US state pay-data reporting, the OFCCP compensation analysis, UK gender pay gap reporting, the EU Pay Transparency Directive reporting, the CSRD own-workforce disclosures and the Dodd-Frank filings are all produced as outputs of the standard pipeline, not as separate compliance reporting.
Cross-system integration
The Agent integrates with the full global compensation-management, survey-data and equity-administration stack: Workday Compensation, SAP SuccessFactors Compensation and Oracle HCM Compensation for HCM-embedded compensation; Mercer, Willis Towers Watson, Aon McLagan and Radford, Korn Ferry Hay Group, Pearl Meyer and Compensia for survey data and job-evaluation methodology; Pave, Beqom, Compa Offers, Payfactors and PayScale for cloud-native compensation analytics; and ADP, BambooHR, Lattice, Greenhouse, Gusto, Rippling, HRSoft CompXL and Cornerstone Compensation for the mid-market. The Compensation Benchmarking Agent acts as the upstream regulatory-mandate, pay-equity-analysis and disclosure-reporting layer feeding the downstream compensation-management workflow, or as the orchestration layer running parallel deployments where different business units use different compensation systems after an acquisition.
Micro-Decision Table
Who decides in this agent?
15 decision steps, split by decider
Identify the pay-equity and disclosure requirements for each entity For each entity, location, headcount threshold and regulatory framework, what is the full reporting catalogue, with thresholds, deadlines and methodology requirements? The framework is whichever applies - the US Equal Pay Act or an OFCCP audit, the state pay-transparency and pay-data laws (California SB 1162, Colorado, New York, Washington and others); UK gender pay gap reporting; the EU Pay Transparency Directive with its phased thresholds and joint-pay-assessment trigger; the CSRD ESRS S1 disclosures; and the Dodd-Frank CEO Pay Ratio and Pay-vs-Performance rules. Rules Engine Auditor
A deterministic rule-engine derives the reporting catalog from the regulatory framework, the jurisdiction and the headcount threshold, mapping each obligation back to its source - the EEOC and OFCCP guidance, the EU Pay Transparency Directive, the UK gender pay gap regulations, the CSRD and Dodd-Frank. It replaces a Comp&Ben department's experiential mapping with a regulatory-traceable rule chain.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Validate the market-data subscription portfolio and survey sources Does the organisation's market-data portfolio cover the regulatory and operational scope? The main sources are the Mercer surveys and International Position Evaluation, the Willis Towers Watson database and Global Grading System, Aon McLagan and Radford for financial services and technology, Korn Ferry's Hay Group methodology, Pearl Meyer and Compensia for executive pay, and Salary.com, Payfactors and PayScale for the mid-market - cross-referenced against the relevant industry-specific surveys. AI Agent Auditor
AI-driven gap analysis of the survey portfolio, with deterministic mapping to the regulatory and operational requirements. The AI assesses survey coverage, job-family alignment and geographic gaps; a deterministic check then gates portfolio approval under Comp&Ben governance, with provenance tracked to the IFRS 2 and ASC 718 disclosure standards.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Map the internal job architecture to the benchmark survey families How are internal job titles, levels and families matched to the external survey codes (Mercer IPE, the WTW Global Grading System, Korn Ferry's Hay Group methodology, the Aon McLagan and Radford taxonomies)? Each role is classified on the EEOC four-factor analysis of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions; ambiguous matches - acquired, hybrid or emerging roles, and leadership roles with company-specific scope - are flagged for human review; and a match-confidence score is recorded per role for the audit trail. AI Agent Auditor
AI-assisted job matching, with mandatory human validation for ambiguous mappings. The AI parses job descriptions, suggests a survey code and scores its confidence; a human reviews the ambiguous cases, leadership roles and emerging roles. Matches are documented to the EEOC and OFCCP audit-readiness standard.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Validate the AI-suggested job-to-benchmark mappings in Comp&Ben review Are the AI-suggested benchmark matches correct - are the survey codes (the Mercer IPE level, WTW GGS grade, Korn Ferry Hay reference level) right for the internal role, its location and business unit? Where a match is ambiguous (multi-incumbent or dual-reporting roles, regional versus global scope), it goes to a Comp&Ben analyst with Comp Director sign-off, and the rationale and the alternative considered are documented. Human Auditor
Human Comp&Ben review ensures correct job matching for a fair comparison. The AI-suggested matches are inputs, not decisions; final approval rests with the Comp&Ben analyst and a Comp Director sign-off, under the ICAEW HR Audit framework, the OFCCP Compensation Procedures Directive and the EEOC Compliance Manual.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - via manager, works council, or formal objection process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Calculate compa-ratios, range penetration and market position per role What compensation metrics are computed per role, location and incumbent? The compa-ratio (base pay over market median); range penetration (position in the band, 0-100%); the market percentile (P10 to P90); the variable-pay opportunity (target and actual STI and LTI); and a total-compensation comparison including equity at IFRS 2 and ASC 718 grant-date fair value - all aggregated by cost centre, business unit, geography, job family, level, manager-versus-IC and protected class for the downstream gap analysis. Rules Engine Auditor
The calculations are deterministic, driven by predefined formulas, fixed currency-conversion rates and the benchmark-survey effective date, and consistent across roles and jurisdictions. They are auditable under the ICAEW guidance, PCAOB AS 2201 SOX 404 and the ISAE 3000 assurance standard, with no AI judgement at this tier.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Run the regression-based pay-equity analysis with cohort testing Controlling for legitimate compensable factors (job level, tenure, performance, location, business unit, prior experience), is there a statistically significant unexplained pay gap by gender, race or ethnicity within comparable groups? The analysis runs cohort and tainted-variable testing under the OFCCP Compensation Procedures Directive and the EEOC Compliance Manual, and calculates both the unadjusted and adjusted gender pay gap on the Eurostat methodology that supports the CSRD, EU Pay Transparency and UK gender pay gap reporting. AI Agent Auditor
AI-driven regression analysis with a deterministic statistical-significance threshold. The AI handles model and variable selection, cohort definition and residual analysis; a deterministic threshold - the EU Pay Transparency Directive's 5% unjustified gap at a p-value of 0.05 - then gates the joint-pay-assessment trigger. The analysis is documented to the OFCCP, EEOC and EU Pay Transparency audit-readiness standard.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Identify outlier positions and significant pay gaps for review Which positions should be flagged for prioritised review? Those well above or below the market median (compa-ratio below 0.85 or above 1.15), outside the internal pay band (range penetration below 20% or above 80%), or showing a statistically significant unexplained pay gap within the cohort (p-value below 0.05) - prioritised by turnover risk, proximity to a regulatory threshold (the EU 5% trigger), the number of affected employees and any protected-class concentration. AI Agent Auditor
Statistical outlier detection on configurable thresholds. The AI identifies multi-dimensional outliers and prioritises them by risk; the thresholds are configured under Comp&Ben governance in line with the regulatory mandate. A human reviews each flagged outlier before any remediation, as the OFCCP, EEOC and EU Pay Transparency Directive require.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Construct the pay-range disclosure for postings and employee inquiries How is a compliant pay-range disclosure generated for the state laws (California SB 1162, Colorado, New York, Washington, NYC Local Law 32, Connecticut and Maryland) and the EU Pay Transparency Directive? It includes the base-salary range, a benefits description, the job duties and any location-specific bands; it is cross-referenced against the hire ranges, the internal band boundaries and the market percentiles; and it integrates with the applicant tracking systems and job-board syndication (LinkedIn, Indeed, Glassdoor). Rules Engine Auditor
Pay-range generation is deterministic, driven by the pre-configured pay-band architecture, the location-specific bands and the disclosure requirements, and consistent across postings and jurisdictions. It is auditable for state and local enforcement and for the EU Pay Transparency Directive, where non-compliance carries civil penalties of USD 100 to 10,000 per posting.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Calculate the CEO Pay Ratio and Pay-vs-Performance disclosures For SEC registrants, how are the executive-pay disclosures calculated? The Dodd-Frank CEO Pay Ratio (CEO total compensation over the median employee's) under the Item 402(u) methodology, with the median employee re-identified every three years or on a material change; and the Pay-vs-Performance disclosure, including Compensation Actually Paid for the CEO and other named executives, cumulative TSR, net income and a financial-performance measure over the last five fiscal years - reconciled to the Summary Compensation Table and the other required proxy tables. AI Agent Auditor
AI-driven calculation on the deterministic methodology fixed by the SEC rules. The AI consolidates cross-company data, reconciles Compensation Actually Paid against the Summary Compensation Table and detects material-change triggers; the deterministic calculation then gates the proxy disclosure and CD&A integration. The analysis is documented to the SEC Item 402, PCAOB AS 2201 and AICPA SOC 2 audit-readiness standard.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Compile the UK, EU and CSRD pay-gap disclosures Which jurisdiction-specific pay-gap reports are generated? The UK gender pay gap report (250+ employees) with the mean and median hourly and bonus gaps, the proportion receiving a bonus and the quartile distribution, by the April deadline; the EU Pay Transparency Directive Article 4 report, with average and median pay by gender and worker category, the pay-gap percentage and the quartile distribution; the CSRD ESRS S1 disclosures on adequate wages, training and incidents of discrimination; and the EEO-1, California pay-data and Massachusetts pay-equity filings. AI Agent Auditor
Reports are generated automatically in the format each regulator requires. The AI handles cross-jurisdictional consolidation, methodology harmonisation and template population, while a deterministic data layer keeps the figures accurate. Records are kept for the longest applicable period, with assurance under ISAE 3000, the EU Audit Directive, PCAOB AS 2201 and the AICPA SOC 2 Type II standard.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - fully documented, reviewable by humans, objection via formal process.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Trigger the joint pay assessment when the gap exceeds the EU 5% threshold If an unjustified gap above the EU Pay Transparency Directive's 5% threshold within a worker category cannot be remediated within six months, what follows? A joint pay assessment with employee representatives or trade unions that identifies the pay-gap drivers, sets a remediation plan and the measurement and monitoring, and is documented under the Article 10 procedure with social-partner consultation and an implementation timeline. Rules Engine Auditor
Threshold-based escalation is deterministic: an unjustified gap above 5% within a category of worker, unremediated within six months, triggers a joint pay assessment under EU Pay Transparency Directive Article 10. It applies consistently across Member States and is auditable by the supervisory authority and the national enforcement bodies.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Value equity compensation under IFRS 2, ASC 718, IAS 19 and ASC 715 How is equity compensation valued? Share-based payments are measured at grant-date fair value under IFRS 2 or ASC 718, using a Black-Scholes, binomial-lattice or Monte-Carlo model, with the equity-versus-liability classification, modification accounting and vesting-condition treatment (service, performance, market). Defined-benefit pension obligations are measured under IAS 19 or ASC 715 with their actuarial assumptions, discount-rate sensitivity and mortality tables. It integrates with Workday Compensation, SAP SuccessFactors Variable Pay, Oracle Stock Plans and the Pearl Meyer and Compensia equity-administration platforms. Rules Engine Auditor
The valuation is deterministic under the IFRS 2, ASC 718, IAS 19 and ASC 715 measurement standards, and consistent across grants and jurisdictions. It is auditable under PCAOB AS 2201, ISAE 3000, the EU Audit Directive and the AICPA SOC 2 Type II standard, with no AI judgement at this tier - the measurement standards are prescriptive.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Apply privacy and data-protection rules to compensation records What GDPR, UK GDPR and US state privacy compliance applies to compensation records? A contract-performance basis for processing pay and a legal-obligation basis for mandated reporting; the Article 9 employment exception where pay-equity analysis includes racial or ethnic origin; storage limitation set to the longest applicable retention; encryption at rest and in transit; DPO oversight with the Member State derogations; the US state privacy laws (CCPA, CPRA, NY SHIELD, the Illinois Equal Pay Act, the Massachusetts Pay Equity Act); and aggregate-only reporting where individual-level disclosure is restricted. Rules Engine Auditor
Privacy compliance is deterministic under the relevant GDPR articles, the UK GDPR and the US state privacy laws. Retention is calculated for the longest applicable jurisdiction - two to three years for OFCCP records, up to ten under the CSRD - encryption is mandatory for special-category data, and reporting is aggregate-only where individual-level disclosure is restricted.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by: Auditor
Generate the Decision Record and distribute the report to authorised users What does the Decision Record contain for each event (survey-portfolio refresh, job-matching review, regression analysis, pay-range disclosure, CEO Pay Ratio, joint-pay-assessment trigger, equity valuation)? The event ID and timestamp; the scope and regulatory framework; the decider type (R/A/H); the input data and rationale; the rule version and any AI confidence score; the challenge mechanism under GDPR Article 22 and the EU AI Act; the retention period for the longest applicable jurisdiction; and the signature or attestation under ISO 27001 and the SOC 2 criteria - with the report distributed to the defined recipients (Comp&Ben Director, CHRO, Compensation Committee, Disclosure Committee, External Auditor) by data-sensitivity classification. Rules Engine
Decision Record generation is deterministic under the Decision Layer architecture, with role-based access control on compensation data. It is compatible with the EU AI Act record-keeping requirement, GDPR Article 22 challengeability, OFCCP and EEOC recordkeeping, the EU Pay Transparency, CSRD, SEC Item 402 and PCAOB AS 2201 standards. The immutable Decision Log supports multi-jurisdiction audit, tribunal defence, regulator inspection and shareholder Say-on-Pay evidence.
Decision Record
Challengeable: Yes - rule application verifiable. Objection possible for incorrect data or wrong rule version.
Challengeable by:
Refresh the regulatory and market-data library when sources update Monitoring the regulatory and market-data sources continuously - EEOC and OFCCP guidance and the state pay-transparency laws, UK EHRC gender pay gap guidance and the Corporate Governance Code, the EU Pay Transparency Directive transposition and EFRAG ESRS amendments, SEC Item 402 and the listing standards, the IFRS 2, IAS 19, ASC 718 and ASC 715 revisions, and the Mercer, WTW, Aon and Korn Ferry survey cycles - has any update changed the pay-equity methodology, the pay-band architecture, a disclosure requirement or a retention period? AI Agent Auditor
AI-driven regulatory-change detection and impact analysis feed a deterministic update of the pay-band architecture and disclosure templates. The AI extracts changes from the Federal Register, state and local enforcement bulletins, EFRAG, the EU Official Journal, the IFRS Foundation, FASB and the survey methodologies, surfacing material ones for Comp&Ben governance to approve; only then are the parameters updated. Consolidating across jurisdictions prevents update-lag where one regulatory theme - such as the EU Pay Transparency Directive transposition - touches several Member State implementations at once.
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
- Standardised job architecture (job families, levels, grades) per Mercer International Position Evaluation (IPE) plus Willis Towers Watson Global Grading System (GGS) plus Korn Ferry Hay Group methodology plus internal Comp&Ben governance
- External compensation survey subscriptions: Mercer Total Compensation Survey plus Willis Towers Watson REWARD Survey Database plus Aon McLagan financial services plus Aon Radford Global Compensation Database plus Korn Ferry Hay Group methodology plus Pearl Meyer plus Compensia for executive compensation plus Pave plus Levels.fyi for technology-sector public benchmarks plus Salary.com plus Payfactors plus PayScale for mid-market pay-data
- Internal compensation data from payroll plus HR systems: Workday HCM plus Workday Compensation plus SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central plus SAP SuccessFactors Compensation plus Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM plus Oracle HCM Compensation plus ADP Workforce plus BambooHR plus Personio - with full per-employee record access including base pay plus variable-pay plus equity plus pension plus benefits plus protected-class data
- Defined pay ranges per grade plus location plus job family with annual refresh per market-data update cycle
- Data anonymisation plus aggregation rules for individual-level analysis plus group-level reporting per GDPR Article 5(1)(c) data minimisation plus Article 9 special-category data plus Article 88 employee data Member State derogations
- Access control framework for compensation data per role-based access plus separation of duties plus audit-log of access events plus encryption at rest plus in transit plus quarterly access-review cycle
- Statistical-analysis infrastructure: regression modelling plus cohort analysis plus tainted-variable testing per OFCCP Compensation Procedures Directive plus EEOC Compliance Manual Section 10 plus EU Pay Transparency Directive Article 10 5-percent threshold
- Decision logging infrastructure per EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping plus GDPR Article 5(2) accountability plus ISO 27001 Annex A.5.36 plus SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria CC7.2 plus US OFCCP 2-3 year retention plus EEOC 1-3 year retention plus EU Pay Transparency Directive transposition retention plus CSRD 10 year retention
- Equity-administration platform integration: Carta plus Solium Shareworks (Morgan Stanley) plus E*TRADE Stock Plan plus Fidelity Stock Plan Services plus Computershare plus Equiniti for equity-grant management plus stock-vesting tracking plus IFRS 2 plus ASC 718 fair-value measurement
Infrastructure Contribution
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.
Compensation Benchmarking 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
Benefits Enrollment Agent
One deterministic benefits-enrolment pipeline that runs open enrolment, life events, pension auto-enrolment, health insurance and cross-border mobility against the rules that govern each - US 401(k) and ACA reporting, UK auto-enrolment, EU cross-border pensions and the IAS 19 accounting behind them - so every election is calculated, not guessed.
Leave of Absence Agent
Parental leave, sabbaticals, special leave - every type, every jurisdiction, one agent.
Merit-Cycle-Governance Agent
Run the annual merit cycle as one governed pipeline instead of spreadsheet ping-pong - Compa-Ratio validation, an equity audit on every adjustment, and documentable grounds for each decision under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act and the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the Agent operationalise US Equal Pay Act 1963 plus Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 2009 plus EEOC Compliance Manual Section 10 pay-equity analysis across multi-state US operations?
How does the Agent handle the US state pay-transparency laws - California SB 1162, Colorado, New York and the NYC and other local ordinances?
How does the Agent operationalise UK Equality Act 2010 plus Gender Pay Gap Reporting Regulations 2017 across multi-site UK operations?
How does the Agent comply with EU Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970 transposition by 7 June 2026 plus Article 9 prohibition pay-history plus Article 10 joint pay assessment?
How does the Agent calculate Dodd-Frank Section 953(b) CEO Pay Ratio plus SEC Pay vs Performance Disclosure 17 CFR 229.402(v)?
How does the Agent operationalise CSRD ESRS S1-10 plus S1-13 plus S1-16 disclosures for EU sustainability reporting?
How does the Agent integrate with Workday Compensation, SAP SuccessFactors Compensation, Oracle HCM Compensation, Mercer, Willis Towers Watson, Aon McLagan, Korn Ferry Hay Group, Radford, Pave, Beqom, Pearl Meyer, and Compensia?
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.