A document and field specification
The document types, required fields, reference versions, and checklist rules in scope, with clear handling for missing or unreadable evidence.
Document intelligence
AI document processing. Evidence beside each finding.
Extract useful fields and compare documents against your requirements. Keep the source beside each proposed value, show incomplete evidence, and prepare a structured record for the person responsible for review.
Document workspace
A useful handoff
Invoice intake review
| Field | Evidence | Review state |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier name | Invoice, page 1 | Matched to record |
| Invoice total | Summary and line items | Difference to check |
| Purchase order | No attachment found | Information needed |
Keep extracted details and unresolved evidence separate.
Built around your work
When this makes senseRecognize
Recognize
the friction?
An attachment arrives, but the work is still scattered across a PDF, a checklist, and a spreadsheet. Someone must find the right version, retype the fields, and explain what is missing. A useful document workflow brings those steps together and keeps the original evidence beside each prepared finding.
A good fit when…
People repeatedly retype the same fields from invoices, forms, or supplier documents.
Reviewers check each new document against a familiar requirements list.
Changes between document versions need to stay attached to the relevant passages.
Tangible work
What you take away.
A source-linked review workspace
Extracted values and proposed findings beside their source passages. Reviewers can correct a field, resolve a difference, or hold a record without losing the original.
A checked output and handoff
The agreed structured export or integration, a queue for unresolved records, and instructions for handling revised files and duplicate submissions.
Put it to workReal tasks.
Real tasks.
A more useful way through.
Find a starting point for your team.
01
Prepare invoice records
Bring fields, purchase-order checks, and suspected duplicates into the finance review.
Explore the workflow 02Check required documents
Compare incoming files with an agreed checklist and show the evidence behind each finding.
Explore the workflow 03Compare contract versions
Bring changed passages and unresolved questions to a commercial or legal reviewer.
Explore the workflowOne possible workflow
From input to a clear next step- 01 / The starting point
A supplier invoice arrives with supporting paperwork through the agreed intake channel.
- 02 / The right context
Extract the required fields and compare them with the purchase order and document checklist.
- 03 / Prepared for review
Prepare a structured record with source references, a missing attachment, and a total that needs checking.
- 04 / A person decides
The reviewer resolves the differences and accepts or corrects the record before the next handoff.
From first conversation to handoffA clear start.
A clear start.
An agreed finish.
- 01
Define the useful information
Walk through a real review. Identify the fields that matter, the accepted sources, and what makes a record complete enough for its next step.
- 02
Keep extraction and evidence together
Build the preparation and comparison flow. Show where each proposed value came from and give missing pages, conflicting text, and unclear fields their own review states.
- 03
Test the awkward documents
Compare the prepared records with the reviewer's work. Include poor scans, changed layouts, attachments, and revised versions before agreeing the operating routine.
Agree the scopeAgree the scope
Agree the scope
and the limits.
Coverage depends on the document types and quality tested. Professional interpretation, contractual acceptance, payment decisions, and final approval stay with the designated reviewer; incomplete evidence remains visible.
Security and data questions ↗A few useful answers
Before we begin.
What does a first document processing scope include?
Start with one document type, an agreed field list, and the record needed at the end. The scope can include extraction, source-linked findings, a review queue, and an export or integration. Use normal and difficult examples to agree what can be accepted and what must be held.
Can it handle scans and changing document layouts?
Scans and varied layouts can be included when the actual examples support useful extraction. Test missing pages, poor image quality, handwritten sections, and revised versions where relevant. Unreadable or conflicting evidence should create a review state instead of a guessed field value.
What determines document processing cost?
Cost depends on document types, layout variation, scan quality, fields and comparisons required, review experience, and destination systems. Document volume can affect extraction and model usage costs. Estimate the work using representative files and include the expected manual review effort.
What affects the implementation timeline?
Timing depends on access to suitable examples, agreement on field definitions, and reviewer availability to judge the results. Unclear requirements or many untested layouts add preparation. Establish the document coverage and acceptance checks before agreeing when the workflow is ready for use.
How are confidential documents handled?
Agree the required document set, who can access it, provider handling, retention, and the output destination before sharing sensitive files. Start with redacted examples when possible. Access to extracted records and source passages should follow the permissions chosen for the workflow.
Who checks new document formats after launch?
Name a reviewer who owns the field checklist, held records, and changes to document coverage. New layouts or rules should be tested against the evaluation examples before expanding use. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance need an explicit agreement or a clear internal owner.