Service 02 — ¥35,000 JPY · 7 weeks
Your shared inbox, handled with a person still in the loop
High-volume correspondence consumes hours of staff time that could be spent on work that requires human judgment. This engagement sets up classification, routing, and reply drafting — with a review step before anything leaves the organisation.
The goal is to reduce the time the inbox takes — without removing the judgement it requires.
What this engagement delivers
A working system for correspondence — documented, trained, and measured
After seven weeks, your organisation has a functioning assisted handling setup: incoming messages are classified by subject, routed to the correct department, and drafts are prepared for recurring enquiry types. A staff member reviews and approves before anything is sent.
You also hold a measured account of how the system performs against manual handling — and a category list of correspondence that must never be handled automatically.
Classification accuracy measured
Classification performance is measured against manual handling throughout the engagement. You receive the figures, not a general statement about the system's capability.
A defined exclusion list
The engagement produces a documented category list of correspondence that must not be handled automatically — agreed with your team and maintained as part of the setup.
Staff trained on the review step
The people responsible for reviewing and approving correspondence are trained during the engagement. The process does not depend on Orb Lab Mesh after the seven weeks are complete.
This service fits a situation that is common and often understated within organisations.
The situation this is suited to
A shared inbox that takes several hours of staff time each day
The pattern
Most incoming messages fall into a small number of categories
A large share of correspondence in any high-volume inbox covers the same recurring topics — order enquiries, request acknowledgements, internal routing requests. The same replies are drafted repeatedly.
The cost
Skilled staff spend significant time on work that does not require their skills
Reading, sorting, and forwarding correspondence occupies hours that could be directed toward work where human judgment, relationship knowledge, or domain expertise actually makes a difference.
The concern
Removing human review creates a different problem
Fully automated replies introduce risk around misclassification, tone, and responses to correspondence that should never have been handled automatically. The review step is what prevents this.
The design of the system keeps a person at the point where judgement matters most.
How the system works
Classification and drafting, with approval before sending
The flow from incoming message to sent reply passes through a fixed review point. Nothing leaves the organisation without a staff member having read and approved it. The diagram below shows where that point sits in the process.
Join diagram — Email and Correspondence Handling
Shared inbox
Correct department
Human approval point
Or held / escalated
The orange node marks the human review point — the step that must be completed before any reply leaves the organisation. Escalation or hold decisions are made at this point.
What the setup covers
- —Classification of incoming messages by subject and type
- —Routing to the correct department or individual
- —Draft replies for recurring enquiry types, reviewed before sending
- —A defined list of correspondence that must not be handled automatically
- —Staff training on reviewing and approving correspondence
- —Measurement of classification accuracy against manual handling
What is not automated
The exclusion list — the category of correspondence that must never be handled automatically — is developed with your team during the engagement. It reflects your specific operations and relationship context.
Common exclusions include: sensitive complaints, correspondence involving regulatory matters, messages from specific contacts identified by your team, and any subject area where a misclassified reply would carry significant consequence.
Seven weeks allows the system to be set up, measured, and adjusted before the engagement ends.
What seven weeks looks like
Setup, measurement, adjustment, and handover
Weeks 1–2
Correspondence mapping
We review a sample of existing inbox traffic to identify recurring categories, routing patterns, and the types of reply that are drafted most often.
Weeks 3–4
System setup and exclusion list
Classification and routing are configured. The exclusion list is drafted with your team. Draft reply templates are prepared for the identified recurring categories.
Weeks 5–6
Measurement and adjustment
The system operates with your staff reviewing outputs. Classification accuracy is measured. Adjustments are made where the figures indicate the system is not performing as required.
Week 7
Staff training and handover
Staff responsible for the review step are trained. Documentation is finalised. The engagement concludes with written records of the setup, measurement figures, and the exclusion list.
The investment includes seven weeks of active work and everything the system requires to operate independently afterward.
Investment
One engagement fee, one complete setup
Email and Correspondence Handling
¥35,000 JPY
Seven-week engagement · Single payment
The fee covers the full seven-week engagement — correspondence mapping, system setup, measurement, adjustment, staff training, and written documentation. No ongoing retainer is required from Orb Lab Mesh after the engagement ends.
The system your team takes ownership of at the end of seven weeks is fully documented and can be operated, adjusted, or dismantled independently.
What is included
- —Correspondence mapping from existing inbox traffic
- —Classification and routing setup for identified categories
- —Draft reply templates for recurring enquiry types
- —Documented exclusion list for correspondence not handled automatically
- —Classification accuracy measurement against manual handling
- —Staff training on the review and approval step
The measurement approach distinguishes this from a system that reports its own performance.
How the work is conducted
Accuracy measured against manual handling — not against itself
Classification accuracy is measured by comparing the system's outputs against how your staff would have classified and routed the same messages manually. This produces a figure that reflects real operational performance — not a benchmark set by the system's own design criteria.
Where the figures fall short of what is operationally adequate, the setup is adjusted during the measurement period. You receive the figures at each measurement point, not a summary at the end.
Data handling — this engagement
What to expect as outcomes
Reduction in time spent on inbox processing
Staff time directed at reading, sorting, and forwarding recurring correspondence is reduced. The extent depends on the composition of your inbox and is visible in the measurement figures.
A system that runs without ongoing external support
The setup and documentation produced during the engagement allow your team to operate and adjust the system independently after the seven weeks are complete.
Documented boundaries for what is not automated
The exclusion list produced during the engagement gives your team a clear record of what must remain in human hands — something that is often not written down before a setup of this kind is introduced.
The structure of the engagement is designed to leave you with something that works — not a dependency.
Our commitment
What we stand behind
No reply leaves without review
The review step is not optional and is not removed during the engagement period. Every reply that passes through the system is reviewed by a staff member before it is sent.
You own what is built
The setup, documentation, exclusion list, and measurement records produced during the engagement belong entirely to your organisation. There is no proprietary system that requires Orb Lab Mesh to continue operating it.
An initial conversation carries no charge
If you would like to discuss your inbox situation and whether this engagement would suit it, the initial conversation is at no charge and does not commit you to anything.
Getting started is straightforward — a message is enough to begin the conversation.
How to begin
From your message to a working system
Step 01
Describe your inbox situation
Use the contact form or email us at info@orb-labmesh.com. A brief description of your inbox volume, the types of correspondence you receive, and any specific concerns is enough to start.
Step 02
Initial conversation
We will respond within two business days. The initial conversation covers whether the engagement suits your situation, what access to existing correspondence is needed, and how the seven weeks would fit your team's schedule.
Step 03
Engagement begins
If both sides agree to proceed, we agree on a start date. The first working sessions cover correspondence mapping and do not require extended blocks of staff time.
Two other services address different stages of the same integration question.
Other services
If a different engagement fits your situation better
¥40,000 JPY — 5 weeks
Integration Architecture Review
An assessment of how newly introduced tools would sit alongside your existing systems — data flow, permission boundaries, points of failure, and what ongoing maintenance each connection would require.
¥29,000 JPY — 3 weeks
Pilot Evaluation Engagement
Independent evaluation of a pilot you have already run — examining whether the measured result supports wider deployment and what the running cost would be at full scale.
Email and Correspondence Handling
Less time on the inbox — with a person still in the loop
If your shared inbox is occupying staff time that could be directed elsewhere, a conversation about whether this engagement suits your situation is a reasonable next step.
Start a conversation