Declarative Employment Logic Automation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional SaaS platforms using manual coding and imperative programming approaches face challenges such as high development time and costs, human error leading to system vulnerabilities, inflexibility in accommodating user-specific customizations or new regulations, and increased compliance risk due to labor-intensive updates.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of a declarative approach for the SAGE platform, which maintains a declarative description of employment laws, allows for automated customization based on the hiring country, including textual guidance, web forms generation, and validation rules, without the need for source code updates.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual coding and imperative programming are used to implement regulatory solutions, then the system can provide detailed control flow and logic, but the development time and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveregulatory complianceVSAvoiddevelopment time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses template-based regulatory logic where pre-defined templates capture common regulatory patterns. Instead of manually coding each regulatory requirement from scratch, the system copies and adapts existing templates to specific use cases, dramatically reducing development time while maintaining compliance accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The system transforms rigid imperative code into configurable parameter-driven logic. Regulatory requirements are expressed as parameters and constraints that can be adjusted without rewriting code, allowing rapid adaptation to different jurisdictions and reducing development time for new regulatory scenarios.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If manual coding is used to implement regulatory logic, then the system can handle complex control flows, but human error increases leading to system vulnerabilities

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveregulatory logic handlingVSAvoidsystem security
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-validation of regulatory logic through automated consistency checks and constraint verification. The declarative model automatically detects conflicts and errors in regulatory requirements, eliminating the need for manual code review and reducing human error-related vulnerabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements automated feedback loops that verify regulatory logic against established constraints and requirements. This continuous validation detects errors early in the development process, preventing vulnerable code from being deployed and enhancing system security.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Manufacturing precision

If imperative programming is used with hard-coded country-specific logic, then the system can provide detailed control for each country, but the system becomes inflexible when regulations change

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecountry-specific logic accuracyVSAvoidregulation update flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system transitions from static hard-coded logic to dynamic configurable parameters. Country-specific regulatory logic is represented as adjustable parameters that can be modified without changing the underlying code structure, enabling rapid adaptation to regulation changes while maintaining precise country-specific control.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent segments regulatory logic into modular, reusable components organized by jurisdiction and requirement type. Each country's regulations are divided into independent logical units that can be updated individually, allowing precise control over country-specific logic while maintaining overall system flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

4Reliability

If imperative coding details each step in the logic and control flow, then the system can provide comprehensive regulatory coverage, but the maintenance becomes labor intensive and error prone

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveregulatory coverageVSAvoidmaintenance efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses declarative templates that can be copied and adapted across different jurisdictions and regulatory domains. Instead of maintaining separate imperative code for each regulatory scenario, the team can replicate and modify templates, dramatically reducing maintenance effort while preserving comprehensive regulatory coverage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The declarative regulatory model creates universal logic structures that serve multiple jurisdictions and regulatory requirements simultaneously. A single declarative definition can enforce compliance across multiple countries and regulations, eliminating the need for separate maintenance of duplicate logic and improving maintenance efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS20250029064A1Systems and methods to automate global employment
Publication Date: 2025.01.23 OYSTER HR INC
  • US20250029064A1 patent drawing
  • US20250029064A1 patent drawing
  • US20250029064A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Systems and methods to automate global employment are disclosed. A method may include generating a decision tree comprising one or more nodes. The method may include receiving a selection related to an employment inquiry. The method may include receiving a selection of a geographical preference associated with the employment inquiry. The method may include modifying the decision tree such that the one or more nodes are limited to a subset of nodes related to the employment inquiry and the geographical preference. The method may include receiving a selection of a preferred node of the subset of nodes. The method may include modifying the decision tree such that the decision tree is limited to the preferred node and a corresponding at least one branch.