For your own business, or as a service you charge other businesses like yours for.
Nobody runs this lab yet. Take it, give it your hours and your prices, and it is yours.
Name, joining date, date of last review, training taken. A payroll export is enough, no integration.
Google Sheets| Employee | Joined | Last review | Training since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sonia B. | 03/2018 | 11/2023 | 2 (one qualifying) |
| Karim T. | 09/2019 | 11/2023 | 0 |
| Elise M. | 01/2026 | none | 0 |
| Patrick R. | 06/2014 | 02/2022 | 1 |
Four rows, four different situations. None of them takes the same script, and that is exactly why the spreadsheet alone does not cut it.
The dated schedule, employee by employee, separating who needs a six-year summary from who needs a plain review.
| Employee | Due | Deadline | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patrick R. | Six-year summary | urgent, overdue | More than six years since joining, no summary on file |
| Sonia B. | Career review | 30/11/2026 | Two years since the last one |
| Karim T. | Career review | 30/11/2026 | Two years, and no training at all since joining |
| Elise M. | First review | 31/12/2026 | New hire, review due within the first year |
Only one row is overdue, and it is the expensive one: a missing six-year summary is what triggers the corrective payment above fifty employees.
One script per employee, filled with their real training and role history, not a blank questionnaire.
Career review - Karim T.
Joined September 2019, field service technician. Last review November 2023. No training taken since joining.
The point not to dodge
Seven years without training is the first subject of this review, not a line in the summary. His question will be yours: did he not want any, or did we never manage to offer any? The answer goes into the record, whichever it is.
To go through
What this review is not
It does not cover his performance or his pay. Those are two legitimate conversations and this is not one of them. Mixing them into the same record would make the document useless as proof.
What was said, what was asked for, what was refused and why. The document that still exists in six years.
Career review record
Employee: Karim T., field service technician. Review held on 18 November 2026, 45 minutes, with the HR manager present.
Path since the last review
Same role, scope widened to preventive maintenance since 2025. No training action taken since joining in 2019.
Requests made by the employee
An electrical work authorisation, with a view to working on the new equipment. The employee states he did not know he could ask for it.
Employer's answers
Request accepted. Enrolment targeted for the first quarter of 2027, funded by the employer. A second request, for a higher technician qualification, is deferred: an answer will be given before 31 March 2027 once costed, and deferral is not refusal.
What stays open
Recognition of skills acquired on the job. To be picked up at the next review, with or without the qualification.
Signatures: employee, employer. One copy handed to the employee the same day.
The French professional development review is not a management ritual, it is an obligation you prove in writing. The law of 6 November 2025 replaces it with the career review from 1 October 2026, changes its frequency and its content, requires a review in the first year for a new hire, and keeps a six-year summary whose absence triggers a corrective 3 000 euro payment into the employee's training account in companies of fifty or more. A forty-person company with no HR director does not have an interview-technique problem: it has a problem of dates, scripts and signed records that exist nowhere. A lab keeps the calendar, produces the script per employee and writes the record.
Worth more in month six than in week one.
The collections belong to the lab, not to any single magik. Every magik reads them and every run adds to them, which is why this lab is worth more in month six than in week one.
They all start empty. The first run writes the first row.
It wears your name, not ours.
The same lab, under your name, your colours and your logo. Your customers never see ours.
AskMOJOOn the Pro plan, and not needed to take a lab. A fully bespoke theme exists as an upgrade, hand built rather than self-serve.
Google Sheets
GmailAnd whatever you already use: any tool available through an API or an MCP server, connected with your own account.
A tool built for exactly your job, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This is for the jobs nothing covers, or the ones spread across three tools today.
The name, the frequency and the content. The professional review becomes the career review, a review is due in the first year for a new hire, and company agreements built on the old scheme have to be renegotiated before that date. This lab does not draft your agreement: it tells you who is overdue and on what.
No, and the distinction matters. It is a corrective contribution: the money goes into the employee's personal training account, not to the tax office. It is owed per employee concerned, in companies of fifty or more, when the summary review was not done. Thirty forgotten employees make 90 000 euros to pay into training accounts.
That is the most common case and the only expensive one. A review held without a signed record is, to an inspector or a tribunal, a review that never happened. That is why this lab outputs a document to sign, not an internal note.
No, they are two different things and merging them is the classic mistake. The appraisal is about performance and is not compulsory; this one is about career path, training and prospects, and it is. Holding them in the same meeting is fine, writing them into the same record is not.
Twenty-two employees means twenty-two joining dates, so twenty-two deadlines that never fall in the same month, and a spreadsheet that is only up to date the day you open it. The corrective payment does not apply below fifty, but the review obligation does. That is where the calendar is worth more than the script.
A tool built for exactly companies of 20 to 250 people with no hr director: a lone hr manager, a finance lead who runs payroll, the owner, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This lab is for the jobs no tool covers, or the ones spread across three tools today, and it runs under your name.
Every audience is still open.
Nobody has taken a square on this idea yet. You declare your audience when you take the lab (“roofers in Brittany”, “plumbers around Paris”), and two people can start from the same idea on two different audiences without getting in each other’s way.
And it wears your name, not ours.
The bundle describes a lab that does not exist yet : the jobs it would do, and an example of each output.
Open Knowledge Format : plain markdown, re-importable into any agent. No account, no lock-in.
A messy first call becomes one page the client reads, corrects and signs. The scope stops moving.
A diagnostic you can charge for: where AI would pay off in this company, what it would cost, and what to do first.
Web searchYour guests get the code, the wifi and the right restaurant at 11pm. You get your evening back.
Web searchGmailStill comparing tools? Best AI for entrepreneurs.