Template · Kashi Labor-Consultation Packet · v1

Labor-Consultation Packet

Pilot-launch document for Kashi 可視 deployments. Prepared for executive sponsor, legal counsel, and worker representative review.

Company:   · Pilot start date:   · Packet version: v1 · 2026-04-21
Purpose of this packet. Kashi is not deployable as a silent pilot layered underneath ordinary meeting software. Deployment requires the documented alignment of three roles — executive sponsor, legal / compliance reviewer, and worker representative. This packet is the artifact that alignment produces. It serves as the amendment record for 就業規則 (shuugyou kisoku / work-rules revision) filing, the written-opinion anchor for the employee-representative process (per MHLW sample filing 000683138), and the internal governance charter for Kashi usage.

§1 · Purpose statement

Kashi is a privacy-bounded meeting governance system that surfaces repeated interaction asymmetries — under explicit uncertainty — as contestable structural signals for human review. Its purpose in this organization is to:

Kashi is not a harassment detection system. Kashi does not determine intent, illegality, or individual culpability. Outputs are starting points for human conversations, never substitutes for them.

§2 · Approved uses

  1. Employee self-awareness. Affected individuals may view their own pattern page privately. No notification to employer.
  2. Manager self-correction. Managers receive weekly Manager Mirror reports on their own behavior, paired with future-oriented feedforward commitments. Private to the manager.
  3. Aggregated hotspot visibility. Executives receive per-manager pattern-intensity reports under k≥5 anonymization. No named-subordinate data.
  4. Structured escalation support. If an affected individual chooses to escalate, Kashi's structural output may support that individual's own case preparation.
  5. Governed remediation (Lane B). If a pattern persists after the protected self-correction window, it transitions to documented remediation under the organization's agreed process.

§3 · Prohibited uses

The following uses are contractually prohibited AND technically non-exportable from Kashi. No API path, no export format, no workflow allows Kashi output to feed these decisions:

Violation of any prohibition constitutes material breach of the service agreement.

§4 · Role access matrix

Role Can see Cannot see
Individual employee Full access to their own weekly pattern page, their own trends, their own evidence vault (if enabled), their own audit log showing who drilled into data about them Any other individual's data. No aggregates.
Manager Their own Manager Mirror: their own behavioral pattern vs their own baseline. k≥5 anonymized team aggregates if the team size supports it. Never: individual subordinate reports. Never: named-individual pattern data for their own team members.
HR / Compliance Org-wide aggregates (k≥5). Team-level threshold alerts that trigger human inquiry. Approved case summaries after Lane-B transition. Raw content. Individual pattern data without documented case justification + employee notice.
Executive (CEO / COO / CFO) Per-manager pattern intensity (calm / watch / concern). Aggregate modeled impact ranges. No named-subordinate data. Named subordinate data. Individual meeting content. Any headline company-wide "health score."
Restricted Investigator Individual data unlocked only via a documented case with employee notice per 労働施策総合推進法 duty of care. Unrelated employee data. Fishing expeditions.
System Admin (customer-side) Technical settings, tenant flags, role assignments, retention config, audit log access. Substantive content unless separately authorized under a documented case.
Kashi staff Technical telemetry, incident investigation data (ciphertext for evidence vault). No transcript content. No pattern data. Even with root credentials. Break-glass procedures require dual approval + audit log entry + customer notification.

§5 · Retention map

Data class Default retention Necessity justification
Raw transcripts 14 days, isolated storage Minimum needed for QA on diarization quality + for contestability window. Purged automatically.
Analytics metrics 24 months Enables detection of year-over-year trends and trajectory-improvement after remediation. Less would undermine longitudinal evidence; more would be disproportionate.
Review-worthy events 12 months Matches most labor-law statute-of-limitations windows for harassment-related claims in Japan and the EU.
Case / legal hold Extended, justified Only when a case is formally open. Case closure triggers review for deletion.
Evidence vault (E2E encrypted) Controlled by the affected individual Only the affected individual holds the decryption key. The employer stores ciphertext; the server does not hold the key required to read it.
Audit telemetry 12–24 months Sufficient to support challenge workflows and regulatory audit. The affected individual can read their own log.

§6 · Drill-down conditions & audit logging

  1. Every non-self-view drill-down writes an audit log entry with role, actor ID, timestamp, reason code, target scope, and case ID (if applicable).
  2. Reason codes are enumerated (not free-form). Examples: aggregate_review, documented_case_investigation, audit_verification.
  3. The affected individual may view their own audit log at any time via their self-dashboard.
  4. Drill-down into named individual data (reserved for Restricted Investigator role) requires: (a) documented case, (b) prior notice to the affected employee, (c) dual approval from HR lead + legal counsel.
  5. Break-glass access (emergency only) requires dual approval + post-hoc case documentation within 48 hours + affected-employee notification.

§7 · Transcript-error & event-review challenge process

  1. Challenge initiation. Any individual may challenge: (a) transcript accuracy, (b) speaker attribution, (c) context window, (d) the summary, (e) the threshold choice, (f) the review-worthy-event disposition.
  2. Provisional suppression. Once a challenge is filed, the challenged object is marked Contested. Employer-facing surfaces stop showing it until resolved.
  3. Human review. Challenges are reviewed by a trained reviewer independent of the affected manager. Reviewer must log rationale for decision.
  4. Resolution states. Upheld (reopened) · Downgraded (lower evidence grade) · Withdrawn (removed) · Escalated (to governance process).
  5. Downstream recompute. If a transcript correction changes an event, all derived aggregates recompute. Old derived outputs are retracted.
  6. Retention under challenge. The challenged object and its source context are preserved through the challenge resolution, even if routine retention would otherwise delete them.

§8 · Anti-retaliation & no-silent-repurposing

Company commits:

§9 · Pilot sunset / deletion rules

§10 · Signatures

This packet takes effect upon signature by all three parties below.

Executive sponsor
Name · Title · Date
Legal / compliance reviewer
Name · Firm / Internal Counsel · Date
Worker representative (employee-rep per 労働基準法 §90, union delegate, or works-council member)
Name · Role · Date
Kashi (vendor)
Name · Title · Date