Solutions · Institutions & administration

Custom AI agents for institutions & administration.

A workflow built around a concrete task. This page places the service mechanics alongside the rules that apply in institutions & administration — without claiming a project we have not done.

Discuss your scenario

Starting point

What institutions & administration look like before any software

The front door of a public authority in the Republic of Moldova is not a contact form, it is a register. Almost any message that asks for something is, legally, one of two things: a petition — any request, complaint or proposal addressed to the authority — or a request for communication of information of public interest. It is neither the institution nor the sender who chooses which one it is: the content chooses, and on that choice depend the response deadline, the required formalities and the consequence of non-compliance. Anyone who builds a digital channel for an institution without knowing this distinction builds a single tube through which two different legal objects flow.

The person who holds the door has a name in the law. Public authorities are required to establish a subdivision or appoint a person responsible for public relations, and the same person does three things that, in other industries, three teams do: receives and registers petitions, forwards them to the specialist subdivisions with the deadline indicated so that the reply is sent within the legal time limit, and manages the official website. The website and the petitions register are not two projects that happen to touch each other by chance — the law has assigned them to the same person. Any information system that treats them separately shifts into technology a separation that does not exist within the institution.

The data sits in places that, on paper, seem orderly. The official website is placed on the technical and technological platform of the operator and is registered in the Register of State Information Resources and Systems. Some of the content is not kept locally at all: the regulations require a reference to the government portal of public services, to the participation portal for public consultations and to the careers portal for recruitment competitions. In practice, alongside this there is the paper incoming register, a general email inbox, a profile on a social network where real questions arrive, and a spreadsheet kept by someone in the secretariat. Each of these places is a copy of the same data, with different access rights and no deadline written anywhere.

The legal basis is set out differently than in the private sector, and the difference is structural, not one of nuance. The ground companies use when they have none other — legitimate interest — does not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the exercise of their duties. What remains are legal obligation and task carried out in the public interest, and the law requires that the basis for these be provided for in the legislation of the Republic of Moldova. The consequence for a project discussion is immediate: the proposal “let’s collect this as well, it would help us with statistics” cannot be justified by its usefulness. Either there is an article that provides for it, or the function is not built.

What is published is not a communication choice. There are two lists, both in force, which do not match: one in the law on access to information of public interest, with sixteen items, the other in the regulation approved by Government decision for official websites, with seventeen. They overlap a lot, but not completely — for example, the list in the law requires data about management, including studies, professional experience and the way of entering office, while the list in the regulation requires the institution’s history and references to named government portals. A website that ticks one list remains non-compliant with the other, and the update deadline is the same in both: five working days from the date the information becomes available. On top of that sits a distinction many providers omit: the compliance, hosting and migration obligations in the decision are placed, with a deadline, on ministries, other central administrative authorities, public institutions founded by them and autonomous public institutions, while for local public administration authorities of first and second level the same decision only recommends bringing websites into compliance. A town hall is not in the same position as a ministry — but the obligations under the law and the administrative code apply to it in the same way.

Supervision comes from different directions. For personal data, the authority is the National Centre for Personal Data Protection, and a public authority is obliged to appoint a data protection officer without any size threshold — unlike a private company, where the obligation depends on scale. For the procurement through which the information system itself is bought, the framework is the law on public procurement and the automated information system through which the procedures are carried out publicly. Whoever builds for an institution therefore enters a project that is itself a public object: the announcement, the documentation and the awarded contract are visible.

Measurement, three routes, and remeasurement

Regulile

What applies in institutions & administration, with the article it comes from

Each rule below carries the normative act that imposes it. Verification does not require you to take our word for it.

The petition and the information request are two different legal objects on the same form

A petition submitted electronically must meet the legal requirements set for an electronic document — that is, an electronic signature. An electronic request for communication of information of public interest is exactly the opposite: for it, those requirements do not need to be met, and the handwritten or electronic signing of the request is not mandatory. A single form that asks everyone for an electronic signature creates an unlawful barrier for half of requests; one that asks no one for it receives petitions that it is not allowed to treat as petitions. The distinction must be made in the interface, before submission, not by an employee afterwards.

SourceAdministrative Code No. 116/2018, art. 9 and art. 72 para. (2)–(3); Law No. 148/2023 on access to information of public interest, art. 14 para. (2) and art. 16 para. (4)

The deadlines are not the same, and the system must know which one it is counting

The general deadline by which an administrative procedure must be completed is 30 days, extendable by at most 15 days for justified reasons related to complexity — the extension takes effect only if it is communicated in writing within 30 days, together with the reasons — and, exceptionally, up to 90 days in case of particular complexity. For information of public interest, the deadline is at most 10 days from registration of the request, extendable by at most 7 days if the request is complex, and the extension takes effect only if the applicant is informed in writing within the initial deadline, with the reasons. A system that displays a single counter is systematically wrong on one of the two flows.

SourceAdministrative Code No. 116/2018, art. 60 para. (1), (4) and (5); Law No. 148/2023, art. 19 para. (1)–(2)

The registration proof is issued automatically, and it is a system requirement, not a courtesy

Public authorities are obliged to provide the possibility of submitting petitions online through their own official websites, and the petitioner must automatically receive proof of registration; for petitions submitted electronically, the registration number is communicated within at most 2 days, by the same means. The same obligation is repeated in the official website regulation. For a request for information submitted electronically, the number and date of registration are communicated no later than the next working day, also by the same means. The difference between this and an automatic “we have received your message” note is that one is proof with a register number, and the other is nothing.

SourceAdministrative Code No. 116/2018, art. 73 para. (5); Government Decision No. 728/2023, Regulation, pt. 23; Law No. 148/2023, art. 15 para. (2)

Legitimate interest is not available to a public authority

The legal basis of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller does not apply in the case of processing carried out by public authorities in the fulfilment of their duties. In practice, the legal obligation and the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or the exercise of an official authority remain, and the law expressly requires that the bases for these be provided for in the legislation of the Republic of Moldova. In a project, this changes the order of the discussion: you do not start from what the system would be useful to do and then look for a justification; you start from the duty provided for in the act and build only what serves it.

SourceLaw No. 195/2024 on the protection of personal data, art. 6 para. (1) lit. c), e) and f), para. (2) and para. (3)–(4)

The data protection officer is mandatory, with no size threshold

The controller appoints a data protection officer when processing is carried out by a public authority or institution, except for courts when acting in their judicial capacity. There is no large-scale monitoring condition here that filters the obligation in the private sector: a small town hall is covered just as a ministry is. The law allows a single officer to be appointed for several authorities, taking into account their structure and size, and their contact details are published and communicated to the supervisory authority. In practice, any public IT project has, from day one, a mandatory contact person who must be consulted.

SourceLaw No. 195/2024, art. 37 para. (1) lit. a), para. (3) and para. (7)

Accessibility is a legal obligation, not a design recommendation

Official websites of public authorities must be adapted, in the manner provided by law, for access by persons with disabilities, especially in relation to text size and contrast. The Regulation approved by Government Decision adds requirements with different levels of force, and the difference matters: adaptation for mobile devices and for persons with disabilities by ensuring a system for audibly reading out the content is phrased as an obligation, while the long list — image labels, contrast, clear structure, full keyboard navigation, plain language, subtitling, testing with accessibility software — is introduced with 'wherever possible'. Above all, for uniformity and accessibility, the use of the ONEST font is provided for.

SourceLaw no. 148/2023, art. 10 para. (2); Government Decision no. 728/2023, Regulation, item 7, item 25 and item 26

What is not published is decided by weighing, not by reflex

Access may be limited if disclosure harms public safety, international relations, crime prevention, criminal prosecution, an administrative or judicial procedure, the protection of personal data, intellectual property or trade secrets — but only cumulatively with the condition that the harm outweighs the public interest. By way of derogation, limiting access to personal data concerning the professional activity of public office holders is prohibited: name, position, studies, experience, remuneration, conflicts of interest, unspent disciplinary sanctions. An automatic anonymisation filter that removes every name from a document makes exactly the mistake the law expressly prohibits.

SourceLaw No. 148/2023, art. 8 para. (1)–(3) and art. 9 para. (1)–(3); Government Decision No. 728/2023, Regulation, pt. 21

The obligation to publish does not stop at public authorities

Information providers are, in addition to public authorities and public institutions, state and municipal enterprises, private-law legal entities controlled by them, private-law legal entities that provide public services, public utility services or settlement services, energy enterprises in the field of natural gas, electricity or heat, professional associations of the professions in the justice sector, and political parties. A water, district heating or sanitation company is not “a company with a public client”: it is an information provider, with the obligations that arise from that.

SourceLaw no. 148/2023, art. 5 lit. a)–h) and art. 6 para. (2)

Mecanica

What custom AI agents do, specifically

The same capabilities that appear on the service page, where each has its own file and back-end line.

We define what “better” means before comparing anything

A case set from your reality, a numeric criterion and a fixed normalisation method set down in writing. For speech we use word error rate with our own normaliser; for text responses, schema compliance plus a common-sense check plus similarity to a reference answer. Without this step, the rest of the work cannot be verified by anyone.

We run the comparison on identical data, with a confidence interval

The same utterances, the same machine, one model loaded at a time, each in its own process. We report bootstrap confidence intervals and pairwise differences, not just the mean — because two models can have different means and still be statistically tied. We had exactly that case: two systems at 66 out of 66 pairwise comparisons, that is, a tie, although the mean table suggested a winner.

We break down latency into segments that add up

In a voice path we measured six segments separately — turn decision, speech recognition, the gate, time to the model’s first text, the first synthesis block, the queue and transport. The check that matters: the sum of the six gives the total time to first sound with a deviation under one millisecond on each valid turn. From there it is clear where the problem is: in the measured case, 68.7% of the time was waiting for the model’s first text, not speech recognition, which took 2.9%.

We choose between configuration, document search and fine-tuning

Document search is implemented and running: hybrid search, 70% semantic and 30% word match, similarity threshold 0,70, five fragments per question, with a per-query journal that keeps scores and timings. We propose fine-tuning only with proof that the first two are not enough — and with the budget and rights on the table before, not after.

We check data usage rights before any training

It is not a formality; it is what stops projects. A corpus of 1,746 hours of Romanian that we had taken into account turned out to be licensed for non-commercial use — therefore unusable for a commercial model. A set of 270,946 examples had the code under a permissive licence, but the data with no licence declared at all. And a voice provider’s usage policy explicitly forbids training a model on its output. Each source is checked on its own page, not on what is written in an article.

We keep consumption under budget per key, not per invoice

Own gateway with 44 configured models, each with token cost and context limit in the configuration. The project key has a model allowlist, budget and period, and can be rotated while keeping the history. Consumption is consolidated daily by user × key × model. Routing uses the least busy strategy, two retries and a maximum time of 120 seconds.

The service, in detail

The data

What every system in the industry addresses

The data classes held by institutions & administration, with the retention basis where the law provides it.

The petition and its file: The petitioner’s surname or name, domicile or registered office, e-mail address if a reply is requested by this means, subject and reasoning, attached documents. Anonymous petitions or those submitted without indicating a postal or electronic address are not examined, so contact details are not optional — they are a condition for examination. The person responsible for public relations ensures receipt and registration, forwards for resolution, sends replies and, in the wording of the code, classifies and archives petitions.Keep: Unverified as a term. The Administrative Code places on the subdivision responsible for public relations the task of classifying and archiving petitions, but does not set a duration; the archiving regime is established by archival legislation and by the institution’s file nomenclature, which we have not verified. The term is set with the institution’s archivist and is written in the record of processing activities.SourceAdministrative Code No. 116/2018, art. 66 para. (1) lit. b), art. 75 para. (1) and art. 76 para. (1); Law No. 195/2024, art. 30 para. (1) lit. f)
Register of requests for communication of information of public interest: A separate record from the petitions register, explicitly required: public authorities, public institutions and state and municipal enterprises record requests in the register of requests for communication of information of public interest, according to the model and in the manner established by the Government. Verbal requests are not recorded, with one exception. The design consequence is that a single "incoming messages" table does not meet the requirement: the register has a prescribed model and must be producible as such.Keep: Unverified as a term. The template and the method of keeping the register are established by the Government; we have not verified the act approving them, so we do not propose a duration.SourceLaw no. 148/2023, art. 15 para. (1) and para. (5)
Professional data of public officials: Surname and given name, position, studies, professional experience, remuneration, conflicts of interest and unexpired disciplinary sanctions. They are personal data and, at the same time, data for which the law prohibits restricting access. This class is the one that breaks the usual intuition of data protection: here the obligation is not to hide them, but to publish them — data on the authority’s management, including studies, professional experience and the manner of appointment to office, are on the list of information published ex officio.Keep: On the official website, as long as the information is current: information published ex officio is updated within 5 working days from the date it becomes available, except for the exceptions laid down by normative acts.SourceLaw No. 148/2023, art. 8 para. (3) lit. a)–g), art. 10 para. (1) lit. b) and art. 11 para. (1)
Content published ex officio: Structure and budget, management, organisational regulations, annual report, planned and completed procurements, public events, foreign travel with cost and source of funding, office hours, programmes and projects, budget execution, recruitment competitions, decision-making process. This is not "marketing content": it is a category with an exhaustive list in the law, with a second list in the regulation on websites, and with a formal requirement — the published information and information made available to requesters must be provided in open format.Keep: It does not have a deletion term, it has an updating term: 5 working days from availability, and for public events — usually no later than one working day after the end of the event.SourceLaw no. 148/2023, art. 10 para. (1) lit. a)–p), para. (5) and art. 11 para. (1)–(2); Government Decision no. 728/2023, Regulation, item 15
Web platform system log: Who logged in, what they published, what they changed, what they deleted. Here the requirement is not inferred from principles, it is written out: the information content management system must ensure the ability to trace and record in system registers — logs — all actions undertaken by each user, plus the definition of user groups with different rights and a mono- or two-factor system for identifying content administrators. Separately, the information content administrator processes petitions and manages the traceability events related to the petition review process.Keep: Unverified as a term fixed by an act. The regulation requires the existence of logs, not the retention period. The term is established by the controller on justified grounds, under the principle of storage limitation, and is declared in the record of processing activities.SourceGovernment Decision No. 728/2023, Regulation, pt. 52 subpt. 4) and pt. 65 subpt. 5), 6) and 8); Law No. 195/2024, art. 5 para. (1) lit. e) and art. 30 para. (1) lit. f)
Backups: Database and programme component archive. The system administrator makes backups of the database, the technical-technological operator ensures restoration of data from backups on request, and the standard solution must ensure the method of making and storing backups. This class is routinely considered in deletion discussions: a backup that contains a petition deleted from the live database is still processing, with the same basis and the same access rights.Keep: Unverified as a term. The Regulation requires that the method of making and keeping backup copies be ensured by the standard solution, without setting a duration. It is established in the institution’s policy and declared.SourceGovernment Decision No. 728/2023, Regulation, pt. 49 subpt. 5), pt. 51 subpt. 5) and pt. 55; Law No. 195/2024, art. 32 para. (1) lit. b) and c)
Data from social network profiles: The comments, private messages and public identities of those who post on the institution’s page within a social network. The Regulation treats them as part of the same regime: it defines the administrator and the social profile user as distinct roles, and the informational content administrator manages the comments and messages received from users. The legal particularity is that the data sits on a third party’s infrastructure, outside the operator’s platform, and a question asked there may be, depending on its content, a petition.Keep: Unverified as a term. The Regulation does not set a duration for content in social media profiles, and the actual retention is determined by the third-party platform. It is treated as separate processing, with the legal basis and term declared in the record of activities.SourceGovernment Decision No. 728/2023, Regulation, pt. 2 (the definitions of “social media profile administrator” and “social media profile user”) and pt. 52 subpt. 5); Law No. 195/2024, art. 30 para. (1) lit. f)

Limbajul

The words people there use

An agent that says “programming” where the industry says otherwise is immediately heard as foreign. That is why vocabulary goes into configuration, not into the glossary at the end.

Petition: An umbrella term, not a synonym for “complaint”. In the Administrative Code, a petition is any request, notification or proposal addressed to a public authority. A request seeks the issuance of an individual administrative act or the performance of an administrative operation; a notification informs the authority about a matter of personal or public interest; a proposal seeks the carrying out of actions in the public interest. Three different intentions, one procedural regime.
Request for communication of information of public interest: It is not a petition and it is not counted under the same deadline. The applicant is not required to state reasons or justify the request, a signature is not mandatory, and the deadline is shorter. The word that separates them in practice is “I request information about…” versus “I request that you do…”: the first asks for something the institution already has, the second asks for an action.
Information provider: The category the law uses instead of “public authority”, and it is broader: it also includes state and municipal enterprises, private-law legal entities controlled by them, those that provide public services or communal services, energy enterprises, professional associations in the justice sector and political parties. The correct question at the start of a project is not “are you a public institution?”, but “are you an information provider within the meaning of art. 5?”.
Proactive transparency: One of the two forms of access to information, alongside communication on request. It means disclosure ex officio, especially by publication on the official website. The distinction is useful in a project because it shifts the discussion from “how do we respond faster” to “what should no longer need to be asked, because it is already published”.
Ex officio: Without anyone asking. It applies to the publication of information on the statutory list and is the opposite of “on request”. In a content discussion, the expression works as a test: if information is on the list for ex officio publication and yet reaches the citizen only through a request, the process is wrong, not the citizen.
Information with limited accessibility: The legal wording for what is not published. It is not a synonym for “secret”: the limitation is made on a closed list of legitimate purposes and only if the harm outweighs the public interest, assessed on a case-by-case basis. A system that marks documents as “restricted” without recording the balancing exercise does not document the decision the law requires.
Individual administrative act: The result of an administrative procedure that produces effects for a specific person. It has a prescribed structure — including the reasoning of the decision and information on remedies — and is null if it is not signed. It matters for software because what looks like “the response sent from the system” may, legally, be an act with formal requirements.
Readresare: What happens when the petition does not fall within the authority’s competence: the original is sent to the competent authority within 5 working days from registration, and the petitioner is informed. It is not “please address someone else” — it is an obligation of the institution that received it, with its own deadline.
Technical-technological operator: The public institution that establishes the conditions and procedures for the development of official websites and provides high-level technical support through specialised staff; in the decision the Information Technology and Cyber Security Service is designated by name. Hosting on its platform is provided for ministries, other central administrative authorities, the public institutions founded by them and autonomous public institutions. In a project, this role is not that of the private provider, and the confusion between “who builds” and “on which platform it sits” is the source of most delivery blockers.
Contracting authority: The institution in its capacity as buyer. The word shifts the discussion from what the institution wants to what it may buy and how: through the procedure provided by the law on public procurement, with the notice, documentation and awarded contract visible in the automated information system. For a supplier, this means the offer is a public document, not a private proposal.

Where it breaks down

What goes wrong when institutions & administration digitalise in a hurry

The single form that mixes two deadlines

The most common way an institution’s website becomes non-compliant is also the most innocent-looking: one “Contact us” page, one box, one register. What goes wrong is that the two legal objects have opposing requirements — one requires an electronic signature, the other prohibits it being requested — and different deadlines, of 30 and 10 days. The result is not an inconvenience, but either an unlawful barrier placed in the way of access to information, or an exceeded deadline that nobody counted. The fix is not technical, it is content-based: two visible routes, with the question asked in ordinary language.

Automatic confirmation mistaken for proof of registration

A message such as “we have received your request, we will respond as soon as possible” seems to fulfil the obligation. It does not. The law requires the petitioner to receive automatic proof of registration, and the registration number to be communicated by the same means within no more than 2 days; for an information request, the number and date at the latest on the next working day. The difference is that one is text, while the other is a verifiable link to the register. A system that sends confirmation before writing into the register produces exactly the promise it cannot uphold.

Anonymisation that deletes what the law requires to be public

When an institution puts an automatic filter over published documents, the instinct is to remove any name. The effect is that the very category for which limiting access is expressly prohibited disappears: the name, position, studies, experience, remuneration, conflicts of interest and unextinguished disciplinary sanctions of public agents. The institution thinks it has become more cautious and has become non-compliant. The rule that avoids this is for the filter not to work on the data type, but on the person’s role — and for the list of exceptions to be written in advance, not discovered after the first complaint.

Official publication done as an image

A scanned report uploaded as an image PDF visually ticks the obligation to publish and misses two requirements at once: published information must be provided in an open format, and the page must be accessible to persons with disabilities. A document that has no selectable text is not readable by a screen reader, is not searchable by the search engine required by the regulation across the entire site, and cannot be reused. The mechanism is banal — someone scanned it because there was a stamp on paper — and it is fixed once, at the level of internal procedure, not document by document.

The model that reasons instead of the authority

An assistant that writes the reason for a refusal nicely seems useful. The problem is that the full reasoning of an individual administrative act is an integral part of the act and conditions its lawfulness: it must include the legal basis, expediency, the manner in which discretionary power was exercised and, in the case of unfavourable acts, a description of the procedure underlying it, including the contrary opinions expressed at the hearing. A plausible text generated from context is not reasoning, it is an appearance of reasoning — and it is more dangerous than its absence, because it passes on first reading. The model’s output must end up in a draft marked as such, not in a field called “reasoning”.

The site built outside the platform provided for by the decision

A project that starts with choosing hosting, the technology stack and the domain, without asking who the techno-technological operator is, ends up at delivery with a good product that cannot be placed where it should be. The regulation says that official websites are placed on the techno-technological platform of the operator, are registered in the State Information Resources and Systems Register, and the domain name is managed in accordance with the regulation on the .md top-level domain. The symmetrical mistake is just as costly: the same requirements applied to a mayoralty as if they were mandatory, when for local public administration the decision formulates them as a recommendation. Both variants are avoided with a single question asked at the first meeting — what kind of authority are you, within the meaning of the decision?

Questions

What someone from institutions & administration asks before buying software

Can an automated assistant answer a petition?

For information, yes; for a petition as such, not without a person. The reply to a petition is, as a rule, the result of an administrative procedure, and if it takes the form of an individual administrative act it must contain the reasoning for the decision and information on the remedies, and an unsigned act is null. The Code allows acts issued in an automated manner, with derogations from name and signature, but that is a narrow exception, not the rule. What we build is the route: correct classification of the message, registration with a number, redirection within the deadline, drafting prepared for the person who signs.

Who decides whether a message is a petition or an information request?

The content, not the sender and not the system. That is why the interface must ask first, in ordinary language — “do you want information we already have, or do you want us to do something?” — and keep the choice visible and changeable. Classification done in silence by a model, without the person seeing what was chosen, moves a legal consequence to a place where nobody can challenge it. When the message is ambiguous, the correct choice is to ask, not to guess.

Can we add a chat to the site without breaching the official website regulations?

The regulations do not prohibit interactive dialogue — they even define the official website as a set of official information and means of interactive dialogue. What they require is that the system have logs for all actions of each user, groups of users with different rights, single- or two-factor identification for content administrators, and that HTML forms do not allow the execution of scripts entered into them. A widget brought in from an external provider must meet these requirements; otherwise, the discussion is about compliance, not features.

What legal basis does a new function have in a public system?

One of those provided by law, and for the public authority the list is shorter than in the private sector: legitimate interest does not apply to processing carried out in the performance of duties. In practice, only the legal obligation and the task carried out in the public interest or the exercise of official authority remain, and the basis must be provided for in the legislation of the Republic of Moldova. The question we ask at the start of each project is which article provides for the duty — and if there is no answer, the function is not made.

Do we need an impact assessment before we start anything automatic?

It depends on the operation, but the question is asked before, not after. An impact assessment is required in particular for the systematic and comprehensive assessment of personal aspects based on automated processing, which forms the basis of decisions with legal effect on the person. The supervisory authority approves and publishes the list of types of operations that are subject to the requirement, so the list is checked at the project stage. When there is already a data protection officer — and in a public institution there is one by default — they are the first interlocutor, not the last.

Who is responsible if the system gives the wrong answer?

The institution, and that is not a contractual formality, it is the reason we design differently. The full reasoning of an individual administrative act determines its legality, and the signature of the competent person is a validity requirement. A system that generates text which nobody reads before it goes out shifts responsibility to a place where it cannot be exercised. What we do is reduce the work up to the signature, not replace the signature.

Can we publish frequently asked questions and answers so that we receive fewer requests?

Yes, and the law even pushes in that direction: proactive transparency is a form of access in its own right, information may be communicated through a reference to the relevant web page when it is available on the internet, and published information must be provided in open format. The limitation is that publication does not suspend the obligation to reply to the specific request and cannot conceal data for which access restriction is prohibited. A repository of questions built from real requests must be cleaned of petitioners’ data before it becomes public content.

How do we handle accessibility, if it is mandatory anyway?

As structure, not as an added layer. The law requires official web pages to be adapted for persons with disabilities, especially in terms of text size and contrast; the regulations require adaptation for mobile equipment and a content sound system, and list, with the formula “as far as possible”, labels for images, contrast, clear structure, keyboard navigation, simple language, subtitles and testing with accessibility software. The font prescribed for uniformity and accessibility is ONEST. An accessibility bar pasted on top of a site that does not have a semantic structure does not fulfil any of the requirements.

Where do the data go if we use a language model?

It is set in writing before the first line of code: which fields are allowed to leave the institution’s perimeter, to which provider, on what basis and for how long. For a public authority the question is stricter than in the private sector, because the legitimate interest basis is not available, and the security of processing requires appropriate measures for the risk, including pseudonymisation and encryption, as appropriate. The practical rule we apply is that the identifying data of petitioners does not leave; what leaves, if anything does, is the minimum necessary for the task.

How is such a project procured?

Through the procedure provided for by the public procurement law, and that also changes the way we write the offer. Law No. 131 of 03.07.2015 on public procurement is the act listed today by the Public Procurement Agency as the benchmark of the field, and the procedures are carried out in the automated information system publicly known as MTender, where procurement plans, the public procurement bulletin, awarded contracts and the list of bans are visible. We do not advise the institution on its procedure — that is done by the contracting authority with its certified specialists — but we write the technical requirements in a form that can be included in documentation.

What we cannot claimWe are not a public authority and we do not take on any of the institution’s obligations: we do not register petitions on its behalf, we do not legally classify requests instead of the person responsible for public relations, we do not justify and we do not sign administrative acts. We are not a technical-technological operator within the meaning of the regulation on official websites and we do not operate the state platform on which these websites are placed — if a project requires this, the discussion is with the designated public institution, not with us. We do not hold any accreditation, attestation or certification issued by an authority of the Republic of Moldova for public information systems and we do not appear in any state register in this field. We do not provide legal advice and we are not the institution’s adviser on the public procurement procedure. We have not verified the articles of Law no. 131/2015 on public procurement: the consolidated copy we have access to is older than the amendments publicly announced by the Public Procurement Agency, and the state register of legal acts gives us an access refusal — that is why we cited the act, not its articles. We have not published our own results in this industry, we cannot cite the client institution’s name and we do not have verified market figures for the Republic of Moldova.

The service, in detail What we actually built All scenarios

The service, appliedWe have not yet delivered exactly this combination. What you read above is the mechanism of our service, verifiable on its page, set alongside the rules that govern institutions & administration — each with the article it comes from. What we have actually built sits on the service page and in the portfolio.

Sources 11 sources · verified on 2026-09-07

What would you want to work better?

Tell us about your process. Together we decide what is worth building, what we can connect, and how we check the result.

Let's talk