Redbo AI

What an AI agent solves for an authority - beyond "resident service"

Evidence-based research from Israel and abroad: which real problems an authority pays for today, and what already works elsewhere. Every number on this page carries its source.

Executive summary

Authorities buy "resident service". That is not what costs them money. What costs money is residents not claiming discounts they are entitled to, staff hunting for information the authority already holds, and nobody knowing what residents actually ask. You can put numbers on those three. You cannot put a number on "resident service".

The eight problems a capable agent solves

The problemWho suffersThe evidence
Benefits go unclaimed - eligible people do not receive what is theirsResidents and the authority41% of public complaints about property tax to the State Comptroller in 2023 - 2025 came from eligible people who had not received discounts and exemptions (State Comptroller and Ombudsman, February 2026)
Contact-centre load - the same questions, around the clockContact-centre staffSingapore, Ask Jamie: roughly 50% of load taken off the centres
The authority's own knowledge is not accessible to its own staffStaffUK: 20,000 civil servants, an average saving of 26 minutes per person per day
Licensing and permitting bottlenecksBusinesses and the city engineerHonolulu: application review from 60 - 90 minutes to 15 - 20. LA and Austin: up to 55% reduction
The authority does not know what residents actually needManagementNLP classification of 311 requests reaches over 83% accuracy
Wrong or outdated content on the website - unnoticedResidents and communicationsNew York: the city bot advised businesses in ways that contradicted the law, because content was not controlled
Language and accessibility gapsVulnerable populationsResearch: language barriers and digital literacy are the leading reported barrier in digital government services
Contradictory information, by definitionResidents and trustA former office-holder appears in dozens of minutes that may not lawfully be removed; the current one appears in two

Why a general chatbot is not enough

This is the first objection every authority raises, and it has four evidence-backed answers rather than an opinion.

1. Answer quality on government questions has been measured - and it is not sufficient

  • Tow Center, Columbia University (2025): 8 AI search engines, 1,600 queries - over 60% incorrect answers. ChatGPT Search: 67% errors
  • EBU and BBC (October 2025): 22 public broadcasters, 18 countries, over 3,000 answers - 45% contained at least one significant problem; 20% serious factual errors, including outdated information
  • ODI, CitizenQuery-UK (2026): over 22,000 citizen queries against official answers - broadly reasonable accuracy, but a long tail of failures: wrong benefit eligibility, a court order claimed to be required when it was not

2. The most troubling finding: they answer even when they cannot

ODI researchers called this absence of refusal "a dangerous property"; the Tow Center highlighted how confident the tools are when wrong. A resident asking "am I entitled to a discount?" gets a confident, well-written answer that is sometimes wrong. The error is attributed to the authority. An agent that can say "I do not have that, contact department X" is worth more than one that answers everything.

3. A general chatbot cannot see the authority's documents

  • Scanned PDFs - minutes, by-laws, plans - are usually not read at all
  • Documents behind forms, archives and internal systems are out of reach entirely
  • Scanned Hebrew documents require OCR, a step a general chatbot does not perform
  • Internal procedures will never be accessible to a public chatbot - and must not be

4. An authority holds contradictory information by definition

The phenomenon has an academic name - knowledge conflict and temporal validity. Successive office-holders appear across dozens of historical documents that may not lawfully be removed, while the current incumbent appears in few. A general chatbot answers according to what is common in the documents, which means a wrong answer given with full confidence. A dedicated agent needs a layer that decides what is valid today.

What already works elsewhere

At first, bots only answered questions. Today they complete processes, and help the authority own staff as well. Anyone still offering only an FAQ is offering a 2019 product.

SystemWhoWhat it does beyond FAQReported result
BotiBuenos Aires, since 2019, WhatsAppCompletes processes, medical triage, events, parkingAbout 2 million contacts a month, 82% resolved automatically
Ask JamieSingapore GovTech, 80 government sitesRouting and cross-agency answeringOver 15 million contacts, about 50% reduction in centre load
BürokrattEstoniaA network of cross-ministry agents - coordinates with another body instead of referring you to itThe world's most advanced pilot in inter-agency coordination
Tel-MaTel Aviv-Yafo MunicipalityWebsite, "My Digital", WhatsApp 106, and agent assistPart of 15+ municipal AI applications
HerzlAIHerzliya MunicipalityMunicipal information, education, transport, paymentsPresented as a digital gateway, not a chatbot
ExtractMHCLG, planning authorities in EnglandTurns planning documents into dataFrom two hours to about two minutes
CivCheck / ArchistarHonolulu, Los Angeles, AustinPre-submission compliance checking60 - 90 minutes to 15 - 20; up to 55% reduction
M365 CopilotUK government, San FranciscoInternal assistant for staff26 minutes per person per day, across 20,000 participants

Standards and regulation already in force

StandardWhat it requiresRelevance to an authority
EU AI Act, Article 50From 2 August 2026: people must be told they are talking to an AI; generated content must be machine-readably markedEven outside the EU, this is already the expected bar in tenders
ISO/IEC 42001 (December 2023)An AI management system - certifiableThe strongest tender differentiator; connects to an ISO/IEC 27001 pack
NIST AI RMFA voluntary AI risk management frameworkThe language in which control documents are written
UK ATRSTransparent recording of algorithmic tools; mandatory in government departments from 2025A transparency card for an authority is a proactive move ahead of regulation
Accessibility - WCAG and Israeli standard 5568Digital accessibility is mandatory in IsraelAn inaccessible widget is the authority's legal exposure

Documented mistakes not to repeat

  • New York, MyCity: a city bot advised businesses in ways that contradicted the law, because content and restraint were not controlled
  • Rotterdam and the Netherlands: an algorithm that scored people for welfare enforcement. Never score or filter people
  • Measuring deflection instead of value: fewer contacts is not necessarily an improvement - a resident may simply have given up
  • Inferring policy from logs: propensity to contact differs between groups, so logs are a biased sample
  • Digital-only service: research shows it widens the gap. A human channel must remain visible

What this means in practice

  • Measure benefits take-up, not call volume. Easy, cheap outreach delivers almost all of the effect
  • Do not measure conversion in the first week - a Spanish study across 400 neighbourhoods found a delayed digital effect
  • Keep a visible human channel alongside the agent, always
  • Decide what is valid today. In authority documents, what is common is not necessarily what is correct
  • Explicit disclosure that this is an AI, on every channel

About this research

This document summarises research conducted through three lenses - leading products and authorities, academic literature, and standards and regulation - drawing on roughly 45 public sources. The figures cited belong to the bodies that published them. No customer data of ours was used, and no customer is named.

2026-08-17

Talk to Us

Schedule a live product demo, ask a general question, or set up a business consultation. Pick what fits and we'll come back to you shortly.

I'm interested in:
Talk to us on WhatsApp