The Taskmaster · Live on Google Cloud
The letter says no. The clock has already started.
Sixty Days turns the exact reason in a disaster-assistance decision letter into a dated, reviewable evidence plan-without deciding eligibility, contacting anyone, or submitting on the applicant’s behalf.
These describe the documented population and process, not a predicted outcome for any applicant. This product does not estimate eligibility, appeal success, or how many people would benefit.
Scope: This is not legal advice, does not predict an outcome, and has no submission endpoint. The applicant reviews and controls every action.
The human problem
The deadline is simple. The evidence hunt is not.
A decision letter can ask for records held by several different people while the applicant is still recovering from the disaster.
One letter, several obligations
The reason, requested documents, and deadline are mixed into formal language. Missing the exact reason means gathering the wrong evidence.
Evidence lives elsewhere
Ownership, occupancy, insurance, and damage records may come from different offices. The applicant remains responsible for requesting and sending them.
The clock keeps moving
Sixty Days registers the whole reminder ladder immediately, then keeps missing work visible instead of pretending a partial packet is complete.
Who this is for: a disaster survivor managing a dense decision letter while rebuilding daily life. No real survivor story or private data is used; every person, letter, and image in this demonstration is synthetic.
Before you use the console
From decision letter to reviewable draft
The system organizes work around the applicant. It never turns document preparation into permission to act for them.
Quote the exact reason
Read the synthetic decision letter, remove identifiers, and keep only reasons that can be quoted from the transcription.
Route each missing item
Separate applicant-held evidence from insurer or public records, then screen only observable photo framing.
Prepare, never send
Draft a request for the applicant to review and send. Register a no-reply check against the deadline.
Build a partial-safe packet
Render an optional PDF that preserves exact reasons and keeps every missing item visible. Nothing is submitted.
See the applicant boundary before opening a case
Google image and video models preview the workflow: understand the letter, register the clock, organize evidence, and stop for applicant review. The media is never treated as case evidence, placed in a packet, or used to infer eligibility.
- Image
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Image
- Motion
- Veo 3.1 Fast
- Role
- Onboarding only; never case evidence
Interactive proof
Run the appeal workflow
Choose a synthetic letter, then follow the numbered stages from left to right. Disabled controls become available only when the case contains what they need.
- UnderstandRead the letter
- GatherCheck evidence
- TrackPrepare a request
- ReviewBuild the draft
Loading measured Gemini fixture catalogues…
Guided preset: damage and insurance letter, failed close photo, wider comparison, insurer request, packet, then deadline wakes. Starting anchors the simulated clock to the selected letter date without deleting stored audit records.
Decision letter
Evidence photo
Agent activity
Applicant-controlled records request
Stage 4 · ReviewDraft packet
Case plan
What this does not do
No legal or eligibility decision
It organizes quoted reasons and evidence tasks. It does not determine eligibility, predict acceptance, or replace legal advice.
No autonomous contact
Requests are prepared with blanks for the applicant to review and send. There is no contact, send, or submit endpoint.
No evidence authentication
Photo checks cover observable framing only. Ready for review never means genuine, sufficient, approved, or accepted.
The PDF is a draft. It is optional, not an agency form, not submitted, and intentionally keeps every missing item visible.
What this build proves
Quoted, not guessed
A reason is discarded unless its exact words occur in the transcription. Four recorded Gemini calls scored 20/20 extraction fields.
Screened, not adjudicated
Two recorded image calls scored 6/6 observable checks. The only outcomes are ready for applicant review, retake, or manual review-never “FEMA will accept this.”
Prepared, not sent
A utility or insurer request is drafted with blanks and tracked against the deadline. The applicant reviews and sends it; the service has no send route.
Grounded draft PDF
Every system-authored decision statement reproduces an exact letter quote. Missing evidence remains visibly listed in a partial packet.
Privacy by omission
Raw letters, photo bytes, transcriptions, and the applicant’s free-text statement are not persisted in the case record.
The whole clock exists now
Day 3 through day 58 wakes are registered at intake. A shorter printed deadline moves the packet and final alert safeguards earlier.
As-built architecture
A bounded workflow with durable state
One Cloud Run service coordinates modular roles. Firestore stores structured case and wake state; raw letters, photo bytes, and applicant narrative are omitted.
Gemini 3.5 Flash and Gemma 4 MaaS are served from Vertex AI's
global endpoint. Real direct identifiers from the transcribed letter are removed before
structured downstream persistence. The API accepts only explicit DEMO-* and
DR-DEMO* packet references. Storage and compute are pinned to us-central1;
model inference is not described as regional.
Research basis and limits
Deadline and supporting documents
FEMA’s current Individual Assistance quick reference says appeals must be submitted within 60 days of the decision-letter date and lists supporting documents such as receipts, bills, estimates, titles, and deeds.
The letter controls the ask
FEMA advises applicants to read the decision letter for the reason and requested documentation. Examples include insurance records, occupancy documents, and ownership records.
Historical friction, not a product promise
GAO reported that common historical ineligibility reasons included insufficient damage and failure to provide supporting evidence. This motivates the workflow; it does not predict any applicant’s outcome.
Evidence routes are source-specific
FEMA lists multiple ownership and occupancy records, while its insurance guide distinguishes settlement, denial, and proof of excluded or absent coverage. Sixty Days now routes those alternatives explicitly and treats photos as optional context, not proof of sufficiency.
Source:
FEMA ownership and occupancy fact sheet
Source:
FEMA insurance quick reference
Important: FEMA says supporting documents may be sent without a separate appeal letter or form. The generated PDF is therefore an optional organizing draft for applicant review, not a required agency form. A current FEMA IHP explainer also instructs applicants to put their application and disaster numbers on every submitted page, so this PDF repeats synthetic references in every footer for the applicant to verify. Source: FEMA IHP application, eligibility, registration, and appeals.
Questions a sceptic would ask
Does this file an appeal for me?
No. It has no submission endpoint. It prepares a reviewable draft and the applicant controls every external action.
Does ready for review mean FEMA will accept the photo?
No. It means only that requested observable features are visible. Authenticity, sufficiency, and agency acceptance are outside this system's scope.
Why use a simulated clock?
The demonstration compresses weeks into minutes. The same durable wake registration and claim path runs on wall-clock time; the UI labels every simulated advance.
Where does AI make a decision?
Gemini transcribes synthetic documents and reports observable image features. Deterministic code verifies exact quotes, routes requirements, schedules wakes, and preserves missing items.
Is any real survivor information used?
No. The fixtures are synthetic and unbranded. The persistence layer omits raw text, image bytes, real names, addresses, registration references, and applicant narrative; the API accepts only explicit demo-prefixed packet references.
How can a judge verify the rules?
The conformance report maps each public rule to an official source, implementation path, and passing test.