FORETELLION
Menteeo for Community Colleges

Deployment Proposal: AI Governance for Student Success Programs

A draft proposal structure for deploying the Menteeo student-mentor platform with FORETELLION governance (v4.1.0-evidence-ledger) at a community college. Each section is written to be adapted to the institution's procurement and compliance process.

1. Executive summary

The college is expanding AI-assisted tutoring and mentoring. Students benefit from faster help; the institution inherits duty-of-care, FERPA, and child-safety obligations it cannot meet with an unmonitored chatbot. This proposal deploys Menteeo with the FORETELLION governance substrate: every mentor-student and AI-to-student message is screened before delivery, sensitive or unsafe content is held for designated human review, and every decision produces cryptographic, auditor-verifiable evidence. The result is a student AI experience the college can defend to its board, its counsel, and its accreditors.

2. The problem

  • •AI tutoring tools answer students directly, with no checkpoint between the model and a minor or vulnerable adult.
  • •Mentor-student conversations happen off the record, with no evidence trail when an incident occurs.
  • •FERPA obligations follow the education record, but AI vendors typically hold chat transcripts outside institutional control.
  • •When something goes wrong, the college has no way to prove what the AI said, when, or who reviewed it.

3. The proposed solution

Menteeo routes every message through the FORETELLION intercept endpoint before delivery. The substrate sits above the model, so it works with any AI the college already uses. Flagged content is withheld and placed in a review queue for designated college reviewers, who release, escalate, or block each hold. Every allow, hold, and disposition is hash-chained evidence with a policy version, timestamps, and reviewer identity, and held records expire on the agreed retention schedule rather than living forever in a vendor log.

4. Implementation plan

Phase 1: Pilot cohortWeeks 1-4

One advising or tutoring cohort, two to four mentors, the existing Menteeo chat surface. FORETELLION intercepts every mentor-student and AI-to-student message, holds flagged content for review, and produces the evidence trail. Success gate: zero unreviewed critical flags.

Phase 2: Department rolloutWeeks 5-10

Extend to a full department. Reviewers are trained on the disposition workflow, tenant safeguard categories are tuned against pilot holds, and the school-level policy overlays are activated per the district agreement.

Phase 3: Campus-wide deploymentWeeks 11-16

All student-facing AI surfaces route through governance. Retention windows and reviewer assignments are set per FERPA guidance from counsel, and the quarterly evidence export is scheduled for the compliance office.

5. Governance and compliance scope

  • ✓FERPA-aligned retention windows for held interactions and review records, default 365 days.
  • ✓Server-attested mentor and student identity: unverified pairs fail closed and are held.
  • ✓Child-safety, self-harm, grooming, and personal-information safeguards on both human and AI-authored content.
  • ✓Per-school policy overlays: age-gated responses, banned topics, required citations set by the district.
  • ✓Cryptographic evidence export for the compliance office: hashes, chains, reviewer identity, timestamps.
  • •Remaining obligations: counsel review of data flows, staff training, and the district data governance agreement.

6. Roles and responsibilities

College: names reviewers, sets escalation contacts, owns student and parent communications, and retains final compliance authority.
Menteeo: operates the mentoring platform, routes all content through the intercept endpoint, and attests participant identities.
FORETELLION: runs the governance substrate, maintains safeguard policies, produces the evidence ledger, and provides verification tooling.
District counsel: reviews retention, records-handling notes, and the FERPA scope before go-live.

7. Success metrics

Interception coverage:100% of student-facing messages routed through governance
Critical flag review:Every critical hold dispositioned within 24 hours
False-hold rate:Below 2% of total message volume after pilot tuning
Evidence availability:Cryptographic evidence exists for every allow, hold, and disposition
Records retention:Held interactions expire on the agreed FERPA schedule, default 365 days

8. Risks and mitigations

  • •Reviewer bandwidth: holds arrive faster than they are dispositioned. Mitigation: 24-hour SLA, reviewer training in Phase 1, escalation targets in the tenant config.
  • •Over-holding harms responsiveness: mitigation: hold thresholds are tuned per school after the pilot, with a measured false-hold rate target.
  • •Adoption friction: mitigation: governance is invisible to students when content is clean, so the student experience is unchanged in the common case.

9. Pricing and commercial terms

Placeholder for the commercial section: per-student or per-seat licensing, tiered by student count and review volume, with the API rate-limit tier aligned to the contract. Insert the college's procurement requirements and the agreed tier before submission.

10. Next steps

  1. Confirm the pilot cohort, mentors, and named reviewers.
  2. Counsel review of the FERPA scope and retention schedule.
  3. Configure the school-level safeguard policy and reviewer assignments.
  4. Run the pilot with a weekly evidence review, then tune hold thresholds.
  5. Approve Phase 2 rollout on the pilot's success metrics.