Regulatory affairs · Info requests
RelayRegulatory affairsTurn regulator information requests into a tracked, evidenced response
A regulator’s letter becomes a dozen questions, a dozen owners and one deadline. Here is a setup where a workflow logs and splits the request, a Relay drafts from approved sources and a named person signs off every answer.
Valnora & Elric team13 min read
- Team
- Regulatory affairs and compliance
- Manual steps today
- 5
- Build steps
- 11
- Review points
- 5
The problem
Regulators ask firms for information all the time: a policy, four quarters of figures, the committee papers where a decision was taken, a description of how staff are trained. Each letter turns into a small project with a fixed deadline, several owners across the business and a senior manager who has to put their name to the answer. In the UK, the FCA’s Principle 11 expects firms to deal with their regulators in an open and cooperative way, and supervisors elsewhere expect much the same. Late, inconsistent or thinly evidenced answers cost trust that is slow to rebuild.
Most regulatory affairs teams run this from a shared mailbox and a spreadsheet. For example, a team handling 40 requests a year with about 12 items each manages close to 500 separate questions, each with its own owner and evidence trail.
How regulatory affairs and compliance works today
Today, done by hand · Regulatory affairs and compliance
- 01A regulator letter arrives in a shared mailbox and someone copies it into a spreadsheet tracker.
- 02A team member splits the letter into questions and guesses who owns each one.
- 03Evidence arrives as attachments in different versions, and someone checks which is current.
- 04A writer drafts the answers, then searches old responses to keep the story consistent.
- 05The accountable senior manager reviews the whole pack, usually close to the deadline.
Where it breaks
- The spreadsheet is out of date as soon as two people edit it, so nobody trusts the status.
- Items stall with an owner for days before anyone notices the deadline is close.
- Answers drift from earlier responses because nobody has time to reread them.
- Sign-off is squeezed into the last day, which leaves no room for questions.
In this illustrative scenario, each item takes about three and a half hours of chasing, collating and drafting, and roughly one item in twelve needs more time.
What the change could be worth
A regulatory affairs team handling 40 regulator information requests a year, each split into about 12 items with different owners.
| Assumption | Value |
|---|---|
| Regulator requests a year | 40 requests |
| Items per request | 12 items |
| Team hours per item today | 3.5 h |
| Team hours per item with tracker and drafts | 1.5 h |
| Loaded cost of a team hour | 70 GBP |
| Items needing an extension today | 8% |
| Items needing an extension with early warning | 2% |
Modelled from the assumptions above to show how the outcome is calculated; not a customer result. Your results depend on your volumes and process.
The outcome you want
Every request is logged and split within the hour, every item shows how many working days it has left, drafts arrive with their sources attached, and nothing reaches the regulator without a named person’s approval. Afterwards, anyone can trace an answer back to its evidence and its sign-off.
Acceptance criteria
- Every request is logged with its items, owners and deadline within an hour of arriving.
- Every open item shows working days left, recalculated each morning.
- Items with five or fewer working days left and no approved answer raise an alert.
- Every draft lists its sources and is approved by the item owner before sign-off.
- The full response is approved by the accountable senior manager before it is sent.
- Each answer can be traced to its evidence, its reviewer and its approval afterwards.
The solution end to end
The setup has two workflows, one Relay, a rule, a monitor and a dashboard, all sharing two tables.
The tracker tables. A "Regulator requests" table holds one row per letter, and a "Request items" table holds one row per question with its owner, evidence links, draft, days left and status. Tables are the single source of truth; everything else reads from them.
Workflow 1, request intake. An Outlook block in trigger mode starts the workflow when a message lands in the regulator mailbox (Gmail works the same way). The Get Attachment operation pulls the letter, an Agent block extracts the reference, deadline and numbered questions, and Table blocks write the request row and one item row per question. A Microsoft Teams block posts the new request and proposed owners to the team channel.
Workflow 2, evidence and deadlines. A Schedule block runs every weekday morning. It queries open items, uses a Function block to work out working days to the deadline, and writes the result back with the Table block. Where an item names a known source, SharePoint, Snowflake or API blocks fetch the file or figures and store the links. Owners with outstanding items get a Teams message.
The rule and the monitor. A rule of type Flag (true / false) marks any item with five or fewer working days left that is not yet approved. A monitor of kind Rule match fires when at least one row is flagged. The alert shows in the app, and it also starts the Relay’s escalation responsibility.
The Relay. A Relay is an AI coworker with its own instructions, resources and permissions. This one, the Response coordinator, is set to Assist. It has three responsibilities: it watches the item table for new rows and drafts each answer from the "Regulatory responses" Knowledge Base, citing sources and listing gaps; it watches the regulator mailbox for follow-ups and deadline changes, then messages the team and opens a task; and when the at-risk monitor alerts, it writes an escalation note for the accountable owner. It can query the tables but cannot write to them. If it proposes an email, even to an internal owner, an approver has to choose Approve & send.
The dashboard. The tracker dashboard shows open requests, items by status and the at-risk list, and is emailed as a weekly PDF.
Sign-off. A Human block pauses the sign-off workflow until the accountable senior manager opens the paused run, chooses a Decision in the Resume Form and clicks Resume execution. A Table block then records the approval.
From regulator letter to signed-off response
Workflow 1 · Request intake
- 01New email in the regulator mailboxAn Outlook block in trigger mode starts a run when a message lands in the shared mailbox.
- 02Split the requestAn Agent block lists each question, the deadline, the reference and the format the regulator asked for.
- 03Request trackerTable blocks write one request row and one row per item, each with an owner and status.
Workflow 2 · Evidence and deadlines
- 04Every weekday morningA Schedule block runs before the team’s stand-up.
- 05Collect named evidenceSharePoint, Snowflake or API blocks fetch the reports and policies each item names.
- 06Recalculate days leftA Function block works out working days to the deadline and updates each open item.
- 07Nudge ownersA Microsoft Teams block tells each owner which items still need their input.
Relay · Response coordinator
- 08Watch items and the mailboxWatches the item table for new rows and the mailbox for follow-ups from the regulator.
- 09Search approved sourcesSearches policies, prior responses and board papers in the Knowledge Base.
- 10Draft answer and gapsDrafts each answer with its sources and lists the evidence still missing.
Dashboard · Deadlines at risk
- 11At-risk flagFlags items with five or fewer working days left and no approved answer.
- 12At-risk monitorAlerts in the app when any item is flagged, and starts the Relay’s escalation note.
- 13Request tracker dashboardOpen requests, items by status and owner, and what is due this week.
People · Sign-off and submission
- 14Owner reviews each answerThe item owner edits the draft and confirms the evidence in a Human step.
- 15Accountable sign-offThe accountable senior manager approves the full response before it leaves.
- 16Submit through your channelThe team submits through the regulator’s portal or an approved email.
Build it
Build the tables and Knowledge Base first, because everything reads from them, and add the Relay once intake has produced real rows to test against.
Configure it step by step
- 01
Create the tracker tables
Tables → New table
- Table "Regulator requests": Reference (Text), Regulator (Select), Received (Date), Deadline (Date), Status (Select), Accountable owner (Text).
- Table "Request items": Request reference (Text), Question (Text), Owner (Text), Evidence links (JSON), Draft (Text), Days left (Number), Status (Select).
- 02
Load approved sources into a Knowledge Base
Knowledge → New knowledge base
- Name: "Regulatory responses". Upload Documents: prior responses, policies and committee papers.
- New connector: SharePoint for the policy library, with Sync Frequency set to Daily.
- 03
Build the intake workflow
Workflow builder → Outlook block in trigger mode
- Trigger: new email in the shared regulator mailbox. Outlook operation Get Attachment pulls the letter.
- Agent block: extract the reference, regulator, deadline and a numbered list of questions as JSON.
- Table block, Insert Row into "Regulator requests"; then Batch Insert Rows into "Request items" with an owner from your topic list.
- Microsoft Teams block: post the new request and owners to the regulatory affairs channel. Deploy.
- 04
Build the evidence and deadline workflow
Workflow builder → Schedule block
- Run frequency: Daily. Time: 07:30. Timezone: your office time zone.
- Table block, Query Rows: items where Status is not Approved or Submitted.
- Function block: compute working days to the deadline; Table block, Update Row by ID writes Days left.
- SharePoint or Snowflake blocks fetch named evidence and write links to Evidence links. Microsoft Teams block nudges owners. Deploy.
- 05
Add the at-risk rule
Rules → New rule
- Rule type: Flag (true / false). Table: Request items.
- Condition: Days left is 5 or less, and Status is not Approved or Submitted. Create rule.
- 06
Add the at-risk monitor
Monitors → New monitor
- Kind: Rule match on the at-risk rule. Threshold: 1 row.
- Check: Hourly. Severity: Warning. Monitor name: "Regulator items at risk". Create monitor.
- 07
Create the Relay
Relays → New Relay
- Specialization: Custom. Name: "Response coordinator". Create draft.
- How it works → Instructions: draft answers only from connected sources, cite each source, compare with earlier responses and list gaps. Never contact the regulator without approval.
- Tools in conversations: Search knowledge bases, Query tables.
- What it can use → Other resources: the Knowledge Base, both tracker tables and the at-risk rule.
- 08
Give the Relay its responsibilities
Relay → Responsibilities → New responsibility
- Trigger: Watch a connected source. Source: Workspace table. Table: Request items. What needs your attention: new items to draft.
- Trigger: Watch a connected source. Source: Outlook. What needs your attention: follow-ups or deadline changes from the regulator. Follow-up: Message me and open a task.
- Trigger: When a monitor alerts. Monitor: "Regulator items at risk". Objective: an escalation note for the accountable owner.
- 09
Set permissions and publish
Relay setup → Permissions
- Autonomy: Assist. Result goes to: The task.
- Email recipients: Only my organization’s domain. Approvers: head of regulatory affairs and a deputy. Approval expires after (hours): 24.
- Review & publish: add a Version note, then Publish.
- 10
Add the sign-off workflow
Workflow builder → Human block
- Display Data: the full response with each answer, its sources and the owner’s approval.
- Resume Form: a Decision field (Approve / Return with comments) and a Comments field.
- Notification (Send URL): the accountable senior manager. After Resume execution, a Table block sets Status to Approved. Deploy.
- 11
Build the tracker dashboard
Dashboards → New dashboard
- KPI cards: open requests, open items, items at risk, answers signed off.
- Stacked bar: items by status per week. Table: items at risk with owner and days left.
- Share → Subscribe…: weekly PDF to the head of regulatory affairs, Mondays at 08:00.
What it produces
One request moving through the setup: the letter, the tracker rows and the Relay’s first draft.
What the solution produces
Incoming request, as received (illustrative)
MemoFrom: supervision team, conduct regulator
Subject: Information request · treatment of customers in arrears
Please provide by 14 November: (1) your arrears and forbearance policy; (2) customers in arrears by product, last four quarters; (3) the committee papers where these figures were last discussed; (4) how front-line staff are trained to spot financial difficulty.
Attachment: request-letter.pdf
Tracker rows written by the intake workflow (illustrative)
Record- Request
- REQ-2026-031 · arrears treatment · due 14 Nov · 4 items
- Item 1
- Arrears and forbearance policy · owner Collections · evidence: policy library
- Item 2
- Customers in arrears by product, 4 quarters · owner Credit risk MI · evidence: warehouse query
- Item 3
- Committee papers · owner Company secretary · evidence: board portal
- Item 4
- Staff training approach · owner HR and Conduct · evidence: training records
- Status
- All items Open · 22 working days left
Draft answer for item 1 (illustrative)
Record- Draft
- Our arrears and forbearance policy (version 7, approved by the Retail Credit Committee in June) is attached. It sets out the forbearance options available and how they are recorded.
- Sources
- Policy library: Arrears and Forbearance Policy v7 · Committee minutes, June
- Consistency check
- Matches the description given in the response to REQ-2025-018.
- Gaps
- No evidence yet of the July update to hardship options. Ask Collections to confirm.
Where people stay in charge
The Relay drafts and the workflows track. People decide what is said and when it is sent.
Where people stay in charge
- Gate 1The team checks the intake split for each new request before owners are notified.
- Gate 2Each item owner reviews and edits the Relay’s draft and confirms the evidence attached to it.
- Gate 3Any email the Relay proposes, such as a note to an internal owner, waits for an approver to choose Approve & send.
- Gate 4The accountable senior manager approves the full response in the Human step before it is submitted.
- Gate 5A person submits the response through the regulator’s portal or approved channel.
The dashboard
It answers the weekly meeting’s questions: what is open, what is at risk and who holds it.
Regulator requests (illustrative)
Items at risk
| Item | Owner | Days left | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q4 complaints MI by product | Complaints | 3 | Awaiting evidence |
| Board minutes on outsourcing | Company secretary | 4 | Draft ready |
| Vulnerable customer training data | HR | 5 | Awaiting evidence |
| Arrears policy, current version | Collections | 5 | In review |
Controls and audit
Each part leaves its own record. Workflow runs record each block’s inputs, outputs and errors in Logs. Relay proposals, approvals, declines and executed actions are written to the audit log, which admins see under Activity audit and can export. The Human step records who approved each response and when. Row-level policies limit each person to the requests they work on, and sign-in runs through your identity provider with SSO and SCIM. You can self-host Agent Serve, and zero data retention is available with supported model providers using your own keys or self-hosted models. Some provider features keep data on the provider’s side by design, such as Gemini Deep Research, so they are outside zero data retention.
Controls and governance
Approvals before action
Relays never send email or book meetings without an approval, under any autonomy setting. An approval covers the exact payload the reviewer saw and expires if nobody decides.
Audit trail
Proposals, approvals, declines and executed actions are written to the workspace audit log, which admins can export.
Run logs
Every workflow run records each block’s inputs, outputs and errors, so a reviewer can trace how a result was reached.
Roles and permission groups
Admin, write and read roles per workspace, plus permission groups that limit which models, blocks and integrations a team can use.
SSO and SCIM
Sign in through your identity provider with SAML 2.0 or OIDC, and provision people with SCIM.
Row-level access
Row-level policies narrow what each person sees in tables, dashboards, exports and scheduled reports.
Self-hosting
Run Agent Serve in your own cloud or data centre, next to the systems it reads.
Zero data retention
Zero data retention with supported model providers, backed by your own provider keys and agreements or self-hosted models. Some provider features keep data by design, such as Gemini Deep Research, so they are outside zero data retention.
More on how Agent Serve handles access, data and audit on the security page.
Roll it out
Pilot on live requests, because real letters are messier than any sample, and keep the spreadsheet running for the first weeks. Put three success measures on the dashboard from day one: items at risk, the share of items needing an extension, and median working days from receipt to sign-off.
Pilot, measure, expand
- Weeks 1–3
Pilot on live requests
- Run intake and the tracker alongside your current spreadsheet for every new request.
- Let the Relay draft into task results only, and compare drafts with final answers.
Done when: Intake splits match the team’s own split for most requests, with corrections logged.
- Weeks 4–6
Evidence and deadlines
- Switch on the evidence workflow and the at-risk rule and monitor.
- Retire the spreadsheet once the dashboard is trusted at stand-up.
Done when: The team runs its weekly review from the dashboard alone.
- Weeks 7–10
Sign-off and scale
- Route every response through the Human sign-off step.
- Add the next regulator or supervisory team and more evidence sources.
Done when: Every submitted response has a recorded approval and traceable sources.
| Risk | How to handle it |
|---|---|
| The intake step splits a letter wrongly or misses a question. | A person checks the split for every new request before owners are notified, and the original letter stays attached to the request row. |
| A draft repeats an outdated policy or figure. | Keep the Knowledge Base synced from the policy library, require sources on every draft, and make the owner confirm the evidence version. |
| Sensitive matters are visible to too many people. | Use row-level policies on the tables and dashboard, and a separate workspace for restricted matters. |
| Owners ignore nudges and items still age. | The at-risk monitor starts the Relay’s escalation note to the accountable owner, and overdue items are reviewed at the weekly meeting. |
Timings are an illustrative plan, not a commitment; your pilot sets the pace.
Before you start
What you need
- A shared mailbox (Outlook or Gmail) where regulator correspondence arrives
- A list of usual evidence owners by topic, such as complaints, credit risk, HR and the company secretary
- Approved policies, prior responses and committee papers you are content to use as sources
- Read access to the systems evidence comes from, such as SharePoint or your data warehouse
- A named accountable senior manager for sign-off, plus a deputy
- Your rule for when an item counts as at risk, in working days
- Agreement on how responses are submitted: the regulator’s portal or an approved email address
Questions teams ask
Questions teams ask
Does the Relay send anything to the regulator?
Not on its own. Relays never send email without an approval, under any autonomy setting, and the approval covers the exact message the reviewer saw. Most teams go further and submit through the regulator’s portal by hand, using the Relay only for drafts.
Can the Relay update the tracker table?
No. Relays can read tables but cannot write to them. Workflows do the writing: the intake workflow creates rows, the evidence workflow updates days left, and the sign-off step records approvals.
How do we stop drafts contradicting what we told the regulator before?
Load prior responses into the Knowledge Base and tell the Relay, in its instructions, to compare each draft with earlier answers on the same topic and flag any difference. The owner then decides whether the change is intended.
What if the regulator changes the deadline or adds a question?
The Relay’s watch on the mailbox picks up follow-ups and messages the team with a task. A person updates the deadline or adds the item, and the next evidence run recalculates days left.
Who can see sensitive requests, such as enforcement matters?
Row-level policies on the tracker table and dashboard limit each person to the requests they work on. Restricted matters can sit in a separate workspace with its own members.
Related reading: chasing audit evidence with a Relay and regulatory reporting preparation. Request access to try it on your own requests.