The booklet you already read, as a site their staff can.
You extract a client’s plan design to challenge their renewal. That same extraction builds an employee-facing site explaining what the group is actually covered for — a page per benefit, in plain language, on your firm’s domain and in your firm’s colours. You point at a booklet already in the library and the pages come out of it. There is nothing to write.
You pick a booklet, not a template
The site is generated from a booklet already extracted into the client’s library. A home page, then one page per benefit line the plan actually carries — a line the booklet does not cover produces no page at all rather than an empty one.
Your chatbot is on every page
Paige sits in the corner of the site, reading the same booklet, citing the page each answer came from. That is why there is no FAQ page to maintain: the questions a page does not answer go to the chatbot instead of into copy somebody has to keep current.
The plan changes, you rebuild
Point at the new booklet and every page regenerates from it. A page you edited by hand is left alone and reported rather than silently overwritten, so your wording survives the rebuild and you decide what to do with it.
No number on the site came from anywhere but the booklet.
Blank is not zero
Where a booklet never stated a maximum, the page carries no maximum — not “$0”, which an employee reads as no coverage, and not “unlimited”, which is a promise nobody made. An absent figure stays absent.
Rewriting is allowed, restating is not
You can have a page redrafted in your firm’s voice. The draft is rejected outright if it contains a number the source did not — including a rounded one, a unit conversion like “$500 a year” into “about $40 a month”, or a maximum borrowed from another page. Drafts come back for you to approve; nothing saves itself.
Firm templates work the same way: a template frames coverage and never states it, because one template gets applied to clients whose plans differ. A template page for a benefit the plan does not carry is dropped rather than conjuring a page about coverage that does not exist.
Thirteen of them, and the one they need is never the one that is missing.
English and French, plus Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Punjabi, Tagalog, Spanish, Urdu, Tamil, Italian, Portuguese, Persian and Arabic — right-to-left where that is how the language reads. You choose which ones a site publishes.
Every published language is always on offer
A toggle that disappears because a translation lagged is no use to the person who needs it. If a site publishes French, French is there.
A translation of an older booklet is never served
Each translated page remembers the English it was made from. If the plan has moved since, the page is re-translated on the spot rather than showing last year’s maximum in French. Only if that fails does it fall back to English — and it says so, in the reader’s own language.
Translations are checked line by line, and a line that drops, changes or invents a number — or that points a link somewhere else — is rejected. A human review is recorded where you do one; it is never what stands between an employee and their own language.
An access code
The default. The sponsor shares one code with their staff. This is what almost every site runs on.
An unguessable link
Possession of the link is the gate — for a sponsor who would rather put it straight into an onboarding email than explain a code.
Open, if you deliberately say so
No gate at all. It takes an explicit choice on your part, and it is never where a site starts.
No site is indexable, whichever of the three it runs on — search engines are kept off all of them, not just the gated ones. A site you have not published is indistinguishable from one that does not exist, and one site’s access code opens nothing but that site.
Documents on the site are streamed through the same gate as the pages, never handed out as a direct file link that keeps working once shared. Withdraw a booklet from members and its link on the microsite stops resolving immediately — there is no cached copy to catch up with.
One site per class of employee — not one per client.
Where a plan splits Management from All Other Employees, those are separate sites with separate codes. A single site with a class picker would show every employee what the other classes get, and one code would reach the whole workforce.
A split across carriers is a different thing and stays one site: if dental sits with one insurer and health with another for the same people, those people have one plan and read one site.
A Quebec group cannot go live without French, and cannot lose it afterwards.
The Charter of the French Language is enforced in three places rather than left as a warning on a screen. A Quebec client’s site will not publish without French. French cannot then be removed from it. And if a client becomes a Quebec client after their site is already live — the case neither of the first two can see, because the client changed and the site did not — a daily sweep puts French back and records that it did.
That last one repairs rather than refuses, deliberately. Blocking the province correction would mean refusing to record something true about the client, and taking the site down would remove the benefits information from the very employees the Charter protects.
Plan design, and nothing about any individual.
No claims history, no benchmarking, nothing specific to the person reading it. A benefits microsite explains what the plan covers; it is not a member portal and does not hold anybody’s claim.
That is a constraint rather than a gap. It keeps an employee-facing surface out of breach-notification territory under Quebec’s Law 25, and it is not something we intend to relax.
You have already done the extraction.
Let us build one from a booklet of yours on a call, so you can see what comes out before you decide anything.