The question
How does your office evaluate student and public inquiries to decide which topics are suitable for an Agent and which stay with staff?
Useful context
Campus offices receive predictable questions every term, and the useful dividing line tends to be whether the answer is stable, publicly explainable, and supported by approved policy documents:
| Often a good Agent candidate | Must stay with staff |
|---|---|
| Application deadlines and required forms | Individual student records |
| Office hours and general procedure steps | Aid eligibility and admission decisions |
| High-volume questions with stable answers | Conduct cases and accommodation requests |
The distinction matters because those determinations belong to a person. An Agent explains published policy and stays clear of any suggestion that it can see live student information systems.
Teams find their own candidates in different ways. Some analyze a month of inbox logs to surface repetitive questions, while others host staff workshops to catalog the routine topics that consume staff time while still demanding strict policy accuracy.
Share your approach
Describe the criteria your team uses to balance inquiry volume, policy stability, and operational risk.
- In scope. Which inquiry types did your office choose to support with an Agent?
- Out of scope. Which questions did you deliberately keep out of automated drafting or guidance, and why?
- Handoff. How does your Agent tell users when an inquiry needs direct staff review?
Please use fictional or de-identified examples when sharing your office experience.
Before you post
Before sharing prompts, configurations, or screenshots, review Community sharing and responsible AI use. Never post student records, personally identifiable information, or credentials.