Pay Equity Auditor
Finds the pay gaps you would struggle to explain
Group F is paid 12.6% less on average, and 3.7% less in the same role and level.
36 people: 17 in group M (average $93.9K) and 19 in group F (average $82.1K).
The raw gap is 12.6%; comparing like with like (17 people in 6 role-level cells) it is 3.7%. The rest of the raw gap comes from where each group sits in the structure.
2 cell(s) show a gap of 5% or more; closing them to the reference average would cost $36.8K.
Descriptive only: tenure, performance and location are not controlled for, and a gap is a reason to look, not a finding of unlawful pay. 2 people sit in cells too small to compare.
Raw and like-for-like gap (%)
Gap by role and level (%)
- Engineer L38.7%
- Manager L47.2%
- Engineer L23.6%
- Analyst L32.8%
- Analyst L22.1%
- Support L11.7%
Role and level cells
| Role · level | Group M | Group F | Average M | Average F | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineer · L3 | 4 | 2 | $106.3K | $97K | 8.7% |
| Manager · L4 | 3 | 2 | $127.7K | $118.5K | 7.2% |
| Engineer · L2 | 3 | 3 | $83K | $80K | 3.6% |
| Analyst · L3 | 2 | 2 | $79K | $76.8K | 2.8% |
| Analyst · L2 | 2 | 3 | $64.5K | $63.2K | 2.1% |
| Support · L1 | 2 | 5 | $42.5K | $41.8K | 1.7% |
What to do this week
- Review Engineer L3, Manager L4: the gap is 5% or more with at least two people on each side.
- Budget $36.8K in the next pay review to bring flagged cells to the reference average, then check each case first.
- Look at how group F is spread across levels: that explains 8.9 points of the raw gap.
Do
- Check each flagged cell for tenure, performance and scope before any adjustment.
Don't
- Don't read a small like-for-like gap as clean: it controls only for role and level.
How to improve
- Add tenure, location and performance ratings so the next report can control for them.
- Add pay history so the next report can show whether gaps open at hiring or later.
Demo
Overview
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.
Benefits
You find it before a regulator does
Or before an employee does, which is often worse.
A defensible position
Because each difference has been checked against the record.
Correction with a price on it
The number that turns intent into a budget line.
What it does
Separates like-for-like from structural
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.
Asks whether the record explains it
Tenure, rating, location, scope. A gap with no objective explanation on file is the finding.
Never invents the explanation
The single most dangerous thing a tool can do here is find a plausible reason. It reports the absence instead.
Reports on groups, not individuals
Small groups are suppressed, because a group of two is a named person's salary.
Shows what closing each gap would cost
The cost of correction, so the conversation is a decision rather than an intention.
Concludes nothing legal
It never says discrimination occurred. That determination needs context no dataset holds.
What this changes
What this changes about your week
- It takes over
- Measuring pay gaps and checking whether the record explains each one.
- Done today by
- An HR analyst under deadline, or nobody until a report is due.
- How often
- Annually where it is a legal obligation. Otherwise when someone finds out.
- Typical manual effort
- Weeks, and the headline number is the least useful part of it.
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.
How it runs
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.
- 1InputValidated against the agent input schema
- 2Modelclaude-opus-5 with automatic fallback
- 3Toolsextract_structured_data
- 4PermissionsRuns READ actions automatically; anything higher waits for approval
- 5OutputStructured result matching the output schema
- 6LoggingTokens, duration and every step recorded
Requirements
Integrations
No integrations required.
Before you start
- Pay by employee with role, level, location and tenure
- The comparison attribute your obligation requires, in the form you hold it
- Performance ratings and any documented pay decisions, where you have them
- Requires the All-Access plan or higher
Use cases
Before a reporting deadline
The figures and the explanations, assembled early.
Annual pay review
Where corrections should go before increases are decided.
After an acquisition
Two pay structures meeting, which is where gaps are created.
A raised concern
Checked properly and quickly, with the analysis on record.
Pricing
All-Access
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits
FAQ
Does it decide whether pay discrimination occurred?
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.
Will it change anyone's pay?
No. It has no route to payroll and produces no instruction. Correcting pay is an employment decision with legal and contractual consequences.
How does it protect individual privacy?
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.
Is this legal advice?
No. It gives none, and its output is an input to a conversation with your own employment counsel rather than a substitute for one.
Reviews
Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Need this agent to work differently?
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent