Onboarding policy checks with Jev
Checklists already track “watch the video / ship the laptop.” Jev reads “I’m stuck because…” and picks a helper queue (access, equipment, accommodation). It does not mark tasks done and it does not approve legal forms.
This unofficial page is the policy checks slice of the onboarding exception routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to onboarding exception routing policy checks. Primary search language: Onboarding Jev policy checks. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): LMS/HRIS own task state; Jev routes free-text blockers. Not a checklist-clone or HRIS IA photocopy — I-9 and legal holds never Jev-only.
Onboarding use-case context
A policy check is a typed question whose instructions + criteria are your rules about the new-hire or customer onboarding note. Jev scores compliance; the onboarding coordinator router enforces. This is not a certification, and it is not a photocopy of a rival “policy engine” page — we keep rules atomic and ANDed in code.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: onboarding checklists.
Policy Checks inputs
Put policy text and the artifact in structured state (never hope the model memorized last quarter’s PDF):
{
"note": { "id": "ONB-55", "text": "I finished payroll forms at my last employer. Also I cannot sign in to the IdP on a screen reader." },
"checklist": { "idp": "blocked", "laptop": "shipped" },
"policy": { "access": "IdP or assistive-tech blockers go to IT-access, not LMS nudges." }
}Name note.text, policy.access, checklist.idp.
Decision signals and actions
| Id | Rule | Enforce |
|---|---|---|
legal_forms |
I-9 / right-to-work stay HR + vendor | HRIS / vendor |
accommodation |
Always a human queue | code conjunction |
task_state |
LMS completion is the checklist | LMS |
Typical primitives on the same request:
| Id | Type | Job |
|---|---|---|
blocker |
Choice | access / equipment / training / accommodation / already_done / other |
stuck_severity |
Score | How blocked is the person vs a simple FAQ? |
needs_human |
Noul | Should a coordinator reply (vs an LMS nudge)? |
violations = [name for name, ans in policy_nouls.items() if ans.noul >= T_VIOLATION]
if violations:
return review(violations)Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” onboarding exception routing score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.
Guardrails and escalation
Policy-in-state can be attacked (“ignore the policy”). High-risk provisioning access or closing a legal form still needs deterministic checks. TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For onboarding exception routing, treat provision_access as the high bar (provisioning access or closing a legal form). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Gold labels are policy-versioned. A criteria edit without replay is how silent false-allows ship. Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.
Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Pack map
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | you are here |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | failure modes |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
One Score for “compliant”? No. Atomic Nouls per rule, AND/OR in code. Money and dates: extract in code first (jaggedness).
If a regex can enforce it, should I still call Jev? Skip Jev. Official “how to build” guidance: keep deterministic rules in code when you can.
Where is the rest of the Onboarding pack? Start with Onboarding decision workflow and Onboarding human handoff. Cluster hub: Use cases.
Employee or customer onboarding? Same pattern: checklist owns tasks; Jev routes leftover language. Keep legal holds out of auto-act.
Can Jev fill the I-9? No. Never Jev-only on statutory forms.
What this page does not claim
- Not an HRIS, LMS, or immigration product.
- No time-to-productivity claims.
- Not official TypeSafe.
- Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.
Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.