We build AI document processing and workflow automation for portfolio companies, with staff review before updates reach the systems they already use.
We connect document intake, review queues, and updates to existing company systems. Staff can inspect the source, correct extracted fields, and resolve exceptions before an update is applied.
We connect the trigger, source records, work queue, and destination system. Staff can see what has arrived, what needs attention, and which updates are confirmed. The existing system of record stays in charge of its data.
Reviewers see the original record beside the prepared fields, failed checks, and proposed action. Missing information and conflicting records go to the right person, and corrections and approvals are recorded before the agreed next step runs.
The integration handles duplicates, partial failures, timeouts, rate limits, and upstream changes. A retry must not create a second invoice, customer, or task. When a response is unclear, the item goes to a person to reconcile instead of being written again.
The handoff includes tests, operating instructions, staff training, and agreed support coverage. After launch, we compare handling time and corrections with the previous process and check how often staff use the application.
We agree on one task, one company, representative records, and the actions the software may take. We name the operator, reviewer, system owner, and release approver, and keep a manual path available in case the automation stops.
We build the queue and integrations in small increments and test the normal path, duplicate input, conflicting values, missing permissions, and failed writes. The company team confirms the business rules, and test data stays separate from production.
We release to a limited group with monitoring and a plan, then compare total effort and completed work with similar cases from before. Expansion waits until the company can use and support the first release.
Illustrative workflow, not a client result. A platform receives requests through documents and email while the job record lives in an existing operating application.
The software stores the source, extracts the required fields, and matches the customer or location against approved records. It flags an unknown site, a missing request number, or a repeated attachment before anyone opens a second job.
A staff member resolves uncertainty and approves the proposed job. The integration writes only the permitted fields, records the destination identifier, and checks the result. A timeout moves the item into review until the destination is reconciled.
We compare time from receipt to ready, active handling and review minutes, corrections, duplicate jobs, and how many eligible requests staff actually send through the workflow. Faster field extraction alone does not prove faster service.
A sponsor can set priorities, but each portfolio company needs its own business owner, technical owner, and reviewer. Before release, we agree who holds code and deployment access and who handles integration upkeep, model changes, incidents, and support. Reusing a pattern in another company does not give either company access to the other’s data.
Partly. A proven pattern and shared code can be reused, but each company needs its own source mapping, permissions, business rules, acceptance tests, and owner. Shared code cuts repeated engineering without exposing one company’s records to another.
The records are more sensitive. Before the software uses them, the organization needs approved access controls, hosting, vendor agreements, retention rules, and a review process. We start with one administrative task. Extracting fields from a document is not a clinical judgment, and using a particular model does not make a workflow compliant.
We compare total handling and review time, rework, , and adoption across comparable cases, then subtract recurring software and support costs. We report freed-up staff time separately from cash savings. Revenue or margin effects need their own evidence and owner.
Yes, for most of it. Discovery, workflow reviews, software delivery, and acceptance testing can run through remote sessions and controlled access to your environment. Watching the work in person or meeting a security requirement may need an on-site visit. We agree on participants, access, time zones, and any visits during scoping.