Jointgrid

Staffing agencies and client companies can create joint-employment questions through contractual rights and day-to-day control over hiring, supervision, scheduling, tools and working conditions. The supplied research confirms an April 22, 2026 proposed federal rule with a comment period that closed June 22, 2026. It does not provide the rule's current status after that date, so the proposed four-factor formulation cannot be treated as final governing law.

Jointgrid should replace predictive LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH placement scores with source-linked evidence questions. It would preserve placement, worker-authorized facts, agency and client roles, contract version, extracted clause, time and scheduling event, tool or worksite assertion, supervisor correction, jurisdiction, current authority, applicability question, missing evidence and qualified counsel finding. Remediation owners could update contract or operating practice without scoring the worker.

Contract language does not prove actual practice, and time-system data does not explain who exercised control or why. A model cannot decide joint-employer status, legal exposure or whether a complaint will occur. Federal proposals, final rules, court decisions and state standards may diverge. A generated packet supports review only; it is not audit-ready, a defense or proof of compliant employment practices.

Placement data can expose pay, schedules, location, performance and disputes. The pilot needs strict agency and client boundaries, worker access and correction, minimization and a prohibition on adverse action, placement denial or surveillance. The buyer hypothesis is a compliance leader, counsel, operations executive or owner at a staffing agency with recurring placements; agency size, client mix, jurisdictions, current contracts, budget and adviser workflow need validation.

A compliance leader, counsel, operations executive or owner responsible for joint-employment review across recurring staffing placements.