AI for finance, with the control environment left intact

It should not, and we would not build it that way. Automation prepares, matches and routes; a person approves. That is not caution for its own sake — segregation of duties is a control your auditors will test, and automating the approval itself is what turns an efficiency project into an audit finding.

On standard invoice layouts it is now very good, and it improves with volume on formats it sees repeatedly. It is not perfect, which is why the design routes low-confidence extractions to a person rather than posting them.

Automation generally produces better evidence than a manual process, because every step is logged consistently rather than depending on someone remembering. We build the audit trail as part of the work. We do not advise on your compliance position — that stays with you and your auditors.

It can flag transactions that look unlike their history, which is genuinely useful for directing attention. Treat that as a prompt to investigate rather than a finding — anomaly detection produces false positives, and a system trusted to conclude will eventually accuse someone wrongly.

It varies enormously by how much of your close is mechanical versus judgemental, which is why we map it before quoting. Anyone offering a percentage before seeing your close is quoting an average.

Usually not. Most of this work sits around the system you already run — capture into it, reconciliation across it, reporting from it. Replacing a finance system is a much larger question and rarely the answer to this one.