Every promotion and tenure dossier checked against the criteria in force for that candidate, every external letter tested, every step signed before the case climbs
Every case reaches its committee complete, on the criteria in force, every letter tested.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Promotion and Tenure Dossier Review checks each promotion and tenure dossier against the unit criteria in force for that candidate before it climbs to the next committee. Seven agents cite the criteria version and page on every check, test every external review letter for arm's length, and link each open item to its page. A Faculty Affairs specialist prepares each change, and the Director of Faculty Affairs signs it before the case moves on.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
A promotion and tenure case is a 400-page dossier that climbs six steps: department committee, chair, college committee, dean, university committee and provost, each with its own vote, deadline and signer. Faculty Affairs prepares the case at every step and answers for whether it followed the rules: the unit's own criteria in the version that applies to this candidate, enough external letters from reviewers at arm's length, recusal of colleagues with a conflict, confidential letters kept from the candidate, and student comments handled under FERPA.
Today that is a checklist, a shared drive and a case specialist reading hundreds of pages by hand. The criteria change, but most handbooks give the candidate the version in force when she reached her rank, so checking against this year's guidelines invents gaps and hides real ones. Arm's length is tested by memory: seven reviewers against a 22-page CV and the publication record. A conflicted letter, a missing course evaluation or an unacknowledged minority report that reaches a committee is a year of a candidate's career and a grievance file.
Estimated split of the hours a case specialist spends on the Faculty Affairs check of one 400-page dossier: 41 checks at about 9 minutes each by hand, and with the agents reading first and the specialist reviewing the open items. The Director's signature stays with a person, so it shrinks least. Our arithmetic, kept modest; the live solution measures it.
Seven agents read the dossier against the criteria in force and test every letter; Faculty Affairs prepares each change and the Director signs it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at Halden State University. Dr. Imani Okafor, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, is going up for promotion to full professor, and the Faculty Affairs check on her case is due Friday. Here is her case, PT-2026-0147, screen by screen in the working solution.
The case is a staircase. The Department Committee voted 9–1–0 on Friday, January 23, with a minority report; Prof. Rafael Ibsen's chair's letter recommending promotion came on February 6. The Faculty Affairs check sits between the chair and the College Committee, due Friday, February 20, and the College Committee step is locked until it is done. Below it, the dossier sits in three columns: Teaching, Research and Service.
Dr. Okafor reached her rank on July 1, 2019. Faculty handbook §5.3.2 applies the criteria in force then unless the candidate elects the current ones in writing, and on August 28, 2025 she kept the 2019 criteria (dossier page 3). The agent cites the 2019 version and section on every check, and shows what this year's version would change: two false items, and a minimum of 5 letters instead of 6.
Never applies a version without citing the handbook section that makes it apply.
Every reviewer is compared with the CV, two publication databases, the grants system and advising records. Letter 2's 2018 paper falls outside the six-year look-back, letter 3 shares a 41-author report under the consortium exception, and letter 6 shares only society service, so all three count, each with its reason. Publication database B did not answer at 08:04, and the screen says so, with a Retry.
Item R-1, blocking, at 98% confidence: Prof. Tobias Lindqvist co-authored two 2022 journal papers with the candidate, J-31 and J-33 on page 14 of her CV, confirmed in publication database A and inside the six-year look-back of the College Guidelines, 2019 version, §4.3. The CV page and the database record sit side by side. The independent Letter Count checker recounts: without letter 4, 6 qualifying letters still meet the minimum of 6.
“I know Dr. Okafor’s work through the society’s annual meetings.” Letter 4, page 341
Item T-1, blocking: the course list on page 45 shows 12 courses, but the dossier holds only 11 summaries. The agent pulled CE 3310 Structural Analysis, Fall 2024 from the course evaluation system, 64 of 88 students responding with a mean of 4.4 of 5, and redacted two student names in the comments before drafting Addendum A.
Owen prepares the reclassification of letter 4 under RC-01, co-authorship inside the look-back window, and adds the missing evaluation to the same packet under EV-01. His note goes on the audit trail. He cannot sign what he prepared.
You cannot sign a packet you prepared.
Joanna sees the two prepared changes, each with its reason code, its preparer, the time and its pages. The screen lists what signing does: the College Committee step lights, the release notice goes to the committee chair, the candidate is told about Addendum A, and the human capital management system is left unchanged. She signs both.
R-1 and T-1 are closed, and the College Committee step is next, due Friday, March 6. No blocking items remain, and three advisory items travel with the case: two CV entries now published, an unsigned society letter, and a chair's letter that does not acknowledge the minority report, for which a one-line addendum is requested.
Prof. Gareth Olumide and Prof. Lucia Brandt, from the candidate's own department, are recused from the college vote, leaving 9 of 11 voting members and a quorum of 6. A member who declared a 2023 review panel with the candidate still votes, with the reason recorded. The release notice goes to Prof. Miriam Haddad, the committee chair.
Dr. Okafor sees the staircase, the signed check and the columns. The letter item shows only as a confidential item, and page links into the letters are removed under faculty handbook §5.7. Every view and decision, including her own views, is on the audit trail.
The same dossier, seen by the people who prepare it, sign for it, vote on it and answer for it on appeal: what their February looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents read the dossier against the criteria in force and test every letter; Faculty Affairs prepares each change and the Director signs it.
Pulls the closed dossier from document management, matches it to its case and indexes every section and page.
Reads the appointment-to-rank date from the human capital management system and the election form in the dossier, chooses the version of the department and college criteria in force, and lists what would differ under the current version.
Checks each criterion's required evidence in Teaching, Research and Service against the dossier and the systems of record, and links every gap to its page.
Tests every external reviewer against the CV, two publication databases, the grants system and advising records, applies the look-back window and the consortium exception, and explains a relationship it lets stand as carefully as one it flags.
Recounts qualifying letters independently against the college minimum and the share allowed from the candidate's list, by rule, with no model.
Keeps external letters out of the candidate's view and candidate-facing exports, recuses same-department committee members, and redacts student names in course evaluation comments.
Holds the handbook calendar, reminds letter writers at 14 and 7 days, escalates a step one business day after its deadline, and drafts the release notices people sign.
Prepare, sign, release. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers from the dossier, the criteria and the systems of record, cites each source, and opens the screen where the work is done. It cannot prepare, sign or vote.
Why is letter 4 not at arm's length?
Prof. Tobias Lindqvist co-authored two journal articles with Dr. Okafor in 2022, J-31 and J-33 on page 14 of her CV, confirmed in publication database A. The 2019 College Guidelines §4.3 exclude co-authors within six years of the request. His letter says he knows her work through the society's annual meetings and does not declare the co-authorship. Without it, 6 qualifying letters still meet the minimum of 6.
Which criteria apply to Dr. Okafor?
The 2019 versions of the department criteria and the College of Engineering guidelines. She was appointed to her current rank on July 1, 2019, and handbook §5.3.2 applies the criteria in force then unless she elects the current ones. On August 28, 2025 she kept the 2019 criteria. Under the 2024 versions the check would have raised two false items, a mentoring statement and a third peer observation, and counted against a minimum of 5 letters, not 6.
Who is recused from the college vote?
Two of the eleven members: Prof. Gareth Olumide and Prof. Lucia Brandt, both in Civil and Environmental Engineering, recused by College Guidelines §3.2. Prof. Tomasz Reyna declared a 2023 review panel with the candidate; that is not a conflict under §3.2, so he votes. That leaves 9 voting members and a quorum of 6.
What is still blocking the College Committee?
Nothing. Joanna Pryce signed R-1 and T-1 at 11:42, and the case is released to the College Committee, due Friday, March 6. Three advisory items travel with the case as notes.
12 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The rules every dossier is checked against are settings, set per college and per criteria version. Every change is versioned, needs the Director, and lands on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Which version applies | At appointment to rank, or elected current | Faculty handbook §5.3.2; on every case, show what this year's version would change |
| Minimum arm's-length letters | 6 letters | Set per college and version; College of Engineering 2019 §4.2 (2024 version: 5) |
| Look-back for co-authors and co-investigators | 6 years | College Guidelines §4.3 (2024 version: 5 years) |
| Large-consortium exception | 25 authors | Works with more than this many authors do not count as co-authorship |
| Share from the candidate's list | At most half of the qualifying letters | College Guidelines §4.4 |
| Letters and student records | Letters confidential to the candidate; student names redacted | Faculty handbook §5.7; FERPA redaction before comments enter the dossier, and again on export; same-department members recused |
| Confidence threshold | 90% | Below it, a check goes to a specialist instead of closing on its own; every override carries a reason code |
| Keep case files for | 7 years after the final decision | An appeal, grievance or litigation hold extends it |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: CUPA-HR, Changes in Workforce Size (2025): US tenure-track headcount up 7%, the largest increase in at least a decade · published university promotion and tenure guidelines on external letters (minimums of three to six arm's-length letters; co-author and collaborator exclusions with look-backs of three to seven years) · FERPA, 20 U.S.C. §1232g and 34 CFR Part 99 · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest. Halden State University, the other institutions and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Promotion and Tenure Dossier Review checks each promotion and tenure dossier against the unit criteria in force for that candidate before it climbs to the next committee. Seven agents cite the criteria version and page on every check, test every external review letter for arm's length, and link each open item to its page. A Faculty Affairs specialist prepares each change, and the Director of Faculty Affairs signs it before the case moves on.
A tenure dossier is the file a committee reads to decide a promotion or tenure case: the CV, the candidate's statements, teaching, research and service evidence, external review letters, the votes and the chair's letter. In the working solution one runs to 412 pages in 11 sections, and every page is indexed so any check can open it.
The Criteria agent reads the appointment-to-rank date from the human capital management system and the election form in the dossier, then applies the handbook rule that says which version is in force. It cites that version and section on every check, and shows what would change under this year's version, so a wrong version can neither invent a gap nor hide one.
The Arm's-Length agent compares each reviewer with the CV, two publication databases, the grants system and advising records, and applies the look-back window and the large-consortium exception set for that college and version. It explains a relationship it lets stand as carefully as one it flags. A separate Letter Count checker then recounts the qualifying letters against the college minimum and the share allowed from the candidate's list.
No. Letters never reach the candidate's view or a candidate-facing export, and page links into them are removed. The candidate follows her own case on the same staircase, and is told when Faculty Affairs adds an institutional record to her dossier.
Yes. The agents read, check and propose; they never remove a letter, edit the candidate's pages, vote, sign or send a notice. A specialist prepares every change with a reason code, the Director signs it, and the person who prepared a change can never sign it. Below the confidence threshold a person decides.
Yes. In the working solution the queue holds 290 promotion, tenure and third-year review cases in 14 colleges, by step and handbook due date, with past-due steps escalated one business day after the deadline. Specialists can assign cases, run the check and remind letter writers in bulk.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents: your faculty handbook, your unit and college promotion and tenure guidelines with every version, and your systems of record. It goes live once every quality gate has passed.
Faculty confirm a prefilled year in minutes, with every line tied to its source.
1-min demoFaculty Search & Hiring ComplianceEvery screen-out reason tied to the posting, and no equivalency request left unread.
1-min demoEducator Certification & Out-of-Field Assignment AuditEvery section tied to the credential that authorizes it, fixed before the state looks.
1-min demoWe'll run Promotion and Tenure Dossier Review on cases of your own, with your faculty handbook and your unit's promotion and tenure criteria.