- Who runs it
- MoJ
- Can it affect people?
- Mostly indirectly. It is described as a tool for staff and internal work.
- Possible rights impact: Internal operations
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- MoJ: PolyAI / Luna / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 2026-09-09
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - official inventory / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
If this affects someone
of the intent-based solution is well suited to structured service journeys where user goals can be represented through a manageable set of intents, entities and business rules. Typical examples include information requests, appointment information, status checks, triage, and scripted transaction support. It is strongest when the organisation needs tight control, clear audit trails and consistent handling across a large volume of similar interactions. Its limitations are that coverage must be explicitly designed...
The SSCL product owner and operational leads review the outputs through analytics dashboards on a daily/weekly basis using intent recognition accuracy, fallback rates and user handoff frequency, reviews ensure that FAQ content remains accurate and that intents reflect current service need. Significant service changes trigger updates to content or configuration.
The tool does not explicitly make decisions, an introduction message is played advising the user that they will be connected to a virtual assistant and can request a human advisor at any point.
Sources and further reading
First indexed from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records on 2026-09-14. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- MoJ
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 7 days ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported3 days agoSubstantialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.