Finds the pay gaps you would struggle to explain
Pay equity has moved from a values question to a reporting obligation in a growing number of jurisdictions, and the obligation is specific: not "do you pay fairly" but "show the gap, and explain each one on objective grounds". An unexplained difference between two people doing equal work is the finding, and the burden of explaining sits with the employer.
Most organisations discover their gaps in the worst way — when an employee finds out, or when a report is due in three weeks. And the headline gap is nearly useless alone, because it mostly reflects who sits in which role rather than what two people in the same role are paid. Those are different problems: one is a hiring and promotion problem measured in years, the other is a pay decision you can correct this quarter.
This agent separates them. Like-for-like differences within the same role and level carry the legal exposure and are the ones you can act on now. Structural differences in how people are distributed across roles are reported separately and honestly, because presenting them together lets a real problem hide inside a structural one.
It is deliberately conservative. It reports the gap and whether the record contains an objective explanation — tenure, performance rating, location, scope. It never invents an explanation, never adjusts anyone's pay, and never concludes that discrimination occurred. That is a legal determination requiring context no dataset holds.
Or before an employee does, which is often worse.
Because each difference has been checked against the record.
The number that turns intent into a budget line.
Two people in the same role at different pay is one problem. Who sits in which role is another. Merged, the real one hides inside the other.
Tenure, rating, location, scope. A gap with no objective explanation on file is the finding.
The single most dangerous thing a tool can do here is find a plausible reason. It reports the absence instead.
Small groups are suppressed, because a group of two is a named person's salary.
The cost of correction, so the conversation is a decision rather than an intention.
It never says discrimination occurred. That determination needs context no dataset holds.
Why HR & People in particular. A raw gap mostly reflects who sits in which role. The differences with real exposure are like-for-like inside one role, and merging the two lets the fixable problem hide inside the structural one.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Pay Equity Auditor has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Read-only by design. This agent has no path to sending, spending, publishing or committing anything. Where that limit is the product, removing it would remove the reason to trust the output.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"asAtDate": "2026-09-02",
"currency": "USD",
"employees": [],
"gapThresholdPercent": 5,
"suppressionThreshold": 5
}{
"method": "Like-for-like compares base pay within identical role and level, controlling for location differential. Structural analysis reports distribution across levels separately. Groups below 5 are suppressed.",
"escalate": true,
"disclaimer": "A measurement of your own records. No conclusion is drawn about discrimination, bias or legal compliance; no pay has been changed or proposed; no individual is identified; groups below five are suppressed; and an unexplained gap means the record contains no objective explanation, not that none exists.",
"assumptions": [
"Role and level taken as stated in the HR record; no re-levelling was performed.",
"Location differential applied from your own published bands."
],
"structuralGaps": [
"Group B holds 34% of L1 roles and 11% of L4 roles. This is a promotion and hiring pattern measured in years, and it is reported apart from the like-for-like findings so it cannot mask them."
],
"couldNotCompare": [
"Four roles have only one holder at their level, so no like-for-like comparison exists."
],
"likeForLikeGaps": [
{
"role": "Implementation Consultant",
"level": "L3",
"status": "unexplained",
"direction": "Group B paid below Group A",
"headcount": 14,
"gapPercent": 8.4,
"costToClose": 61200,
"explanationOnRecord": "Tenure and performance ratings are comparable across the group. Nothing in the record accounts for the difference."
},
{
"role": "Account Manager",
"level": "L2",
"status": "partly-explained",
"direction": "Group A paid below Group B",
"headcount": 9,
"gapPercent": 6.1,
"costToClose": 14800,
"explanationOnRecord": "Two of the higher-paid roles carry a documented territory premium recorded at hire. That accounts for most but not all of the difference."
}
],
"escalationReason": "An 8.4% like-for-like gap across 14 people has no objective explanation in the record, above the 5% threshold.",
"groupsSuppressed": 7,
"suppressionThresholdUsed": 5,
"totalCostToCloseUnexplained": 76000
}No integrations required.
The figures and the explanations, assembled early.
Where corrections should go before increases are decided.
Two pay structures meeting, which is where gaps are created.
Checked properly and quickly, with the analysis on record.
$499/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
Never. That is a legal determination requiring context this cannot see. It reports the gap and whether an objective explanation exists on record, and stops there.
No. It has no route to payroll and produces no instruction. Correcting pay is an employment decision with legal and contractual consequences.
It suppresses groups below the size you set, defaulting to five. Below that, a group figure is one person's salary with a label on it.
No. It gives none, and its output is an input to a conversation with your own employment counsel rather than a substitute for one.
No reviews yet. Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent