Open for review This is version 1.0, shared with invited reviewers. Comments that remove a capability are as useful as comments that add one. Submit feedback on this document.

Functional agenda

Voice AI Intake: Functional Agenda

This is the list of what a voice AI intake system needs to be able to do when a person calls a legal aid organization for help.

Version
1.0
Status
Draft for review
Updated
August 2026
Cite an item as
VOI-4.2 (voice-intake v1.0)
Back to the Voice AI Intake hub
Open the test suite Submit feedback

Start here

  • What this is

    A checklist of what a voice AI intake system needs to be able to do, with the standard each capability has to meet.

  • What to do with it

    Hand it to a vendor or an internal team and ask them to answer item by item. Filter it, download it, and use it as your requirements list.

  • What it does not do

    It endorses no product and sets no passing scores. The conformance standard sets the thresholds and the review gates.

  • Where to start

    Choose your scope, then press Required and critical only. That is the shortest list a system clears before it takes a real call.

The full explanation of this document type, including how it is versioned and published, sits on About functional agendas.

Capability list

Choose the scope that matches the system you are building or evaluating, then filter the list to the levels you care about. The link, the downloads, and the print view all follow whatever the filters are showing.

What this workflow covers, and where it ends

A person calls a published phone number. The system answers, tells the caller what it is, takes consent, collects who they are and what happened, classifies the legal issue, screens eligibility, checks for a conflict, and produces an intake record that staff can act on without calling the person back for the basics. At the widest scope the record flows into a document.

Three neighbouring workflows have their own agendas. Brief help question answering starts from a question rather than a caller. Referral routing scores and ranks services against capacity. Document assembly fills a form out. A single deployed product often crosses those lines, and the agendas stay separate so that conformance can be tested one workflow at a time.

Step one

What kind of system are you building or evaluating?

Levels
Search the capabilities

How to read the levels, and how to cite a capability
LevelKeywordWhat it requires
RequiredMUST The system does this before it serves the public. A deployment that misses a required capability has a failure mode the field has already documented.
CriticalMUST A required capability where failure harms a person directly. These are the items to test hardest and to review by hand.
ExtendedSHOULD There may be good reasons to skip one of these, and the reasons should be written down. Most are what a mature deployment adds after its first year.
AspirationalMAY Few systems do these yet. They mark the direction of travel, and they are the capabilities most likely to change in the next version.

The keyword column follows BCP 14, the convention used in internet specifications, where the capitalized words carry the requirement level and ordinary prose does not. The keywords appear in the CSV and JSON downloads so that they can be pasted into a solicitation or a grant condition.

Identifiers

Each capability carries an identifier in the form VOI-<task area>.<capability>, for example VOI-4.2. Identifiers do not move or get reused inside a version. A retired capability keeps its number and is marked retired rather than deleted. Because numbers can change between versions, cite an item with the version attached: VOI-4.2 (voice-intake v1.0). This follows the identifier rule used by the OWASP Application Security Verification Standard.

Scopes

This agenda holds one catalog of 71 capabilities. Each of the five scopes is a selection over that catalog, stating which capabilities apply to a deployment of that shape and at what level. A capability marked not applicable is out of scope for that shape of deployment rather than unimportant. An organization can publish its own scope, saying what it requires locally, without forking the capability list.

Formats

This page is the reference view. The CSV and JSON downloads carry whatever the filters are currently showing, so a scope and level selection becomes a working checklist. The print view produces a PDF of the same selection. Every download records the version, the status, and the scope it came from.

Task areas and capability counts

Jump to a task area

    Where this comes from, and how to comment

    This agenda was compiled from the Voice AI Intake power group, which met monthly from March to June 2026, together with student evaluation frameworks, reviews of open-source implementations, published pilot data, and a white paper on AI-enhanced triage and intake. Contributors include practitioners from legal aid organizations, court self-help programs, statewide legal help systems, university research labs, and technology vendors.

    Every recommendation here carries evidence from practitioner experience rather than from a large-scale validation study. Treat the document as a starting point for your own requirements, and tell us where it is wrong.

    Draft for review. This agenda is being developed with the Voice AI Intake power group. It draws on practitioner input gathered from March to June 2026 and has not been formally validated. Send corrections and additions to legaldesignlab@law.stanford.edu.

    The rest of the package

    Other documents for this workflow

    A functional agenda is one of the documents the Commons produces for each workflow. These are the others for voice AI intake.