The accountant receives a coding proposal with its supporting record.
A complete document goes to approval. A missing account, cost center, or receipt stops the invoice and tells the accountant exactly what needs attention.
Measured on 12 test invoices
This version shows an account and cost-center proposal, a purchase-order check, and the accountant's review queue. It uses test data and connects to no ERP, KSeF, or general ledger.
- Recorded run
- Measured on 12 test invoices
- Measurement scope
- Accounts payable invoice coding
- Verified
- synthetic data
Problem, solution, and result
The problem
Before posting an invoice, someone reads it, selects the account and cost center, and compares it with the purchase order and receipt. At volume, the accounting team repeats these checks for hours.
How the system works
The system combines invoice text with supplier history and proposes an account and cost center. It then compares lines, quantities, and values with the order and receipt. The accountant approves the proposal or sends the document for clarification.
What we tested
This version shows an account and cost-center proposal, a purchase-order check, and the accountant's review queue. It uses test data and connects to no ERP, KSeF, or general ledger.
For whom
This is a good automation candidate when accountants repeatedly code similar invoices and search supplier history by hand.
Invoice → coding proposal → control
- 01Account and cost center come from the invoice and supplier history
- 02Lines are checked against the order and receipt
- 03The accountant approves or requests clarification
- Business type
- Companies with in-house accounting or accounts payable
- Input
- A cost invoice with its source document and supplier history
- Boundary
- A missing account or cost center, or a blocking variance, prevents ready status; the accountant approves the entry or sends the document for clarification
- Cost
- USD 0.004514 per invoice; USD 0.054165 for the recorded 12-invoice run.
- Security
- An invoice missing an account, cost center, or proof of delivery cannot be marked ready.
- Speed
- We measure invoice handling time in a pilot using the client’s documents and accounting rules.
- Trace
- The history shows the basis for each suggestion, detected differences, and the accountant’s decision.
- Similar system build
- from €3,500 net (approx. $3,800) · 2–6 weeks
Reference exchange rates: USD 1 = PLN 3.72; EUR 1 = PLN 4.30. PLN amounts are rounded, with the measurement currency retained in parentheses.
Where automation stops
When the accountant decides
The system prepares a proposal and checks completeness. The accountant approves the account and cost center or sends the invoice for clarification. The system cannot post an invoice, change a purchase order, or approve payment.
- Boundary
- A missing account or cost center, or a blocking variance, prevents ready status; the accountant approves the entry or sends the document for clarification
- Cost
- USD 0.004514 per invoice; USD 0.054165 for the recorded 12-invoice run.
- Security
- An invoice missing an account, cost center, or proof of delivery cannot be marked ready.
- Speed
- We measure invoice handling time in a pilot using the client’s documents and accounting rules.
Estimated impact
Calculate the impact at your volume
This estimate uses the stated volume. Enter your own numbers to assess the possible impact in your company. The result is confirmed only during a pilot.
Today
218 h
With the system
94 h
Time or cost saved
Modelled scenario: 100-150 h/mo, base 125 h
- Volume
- Modelled scenario: 936 invoices/mo
- Formula
- 936 x 8 min / 60
- Calculation status
- medium
Data in the screenshots. The names, amounts, and documents shown in the screenshots are synthetic. Client data remains private. Measurements describe the demonstrator and are kept separate from production outcomes.
Working surfaces
The accountant approves the coding and resolves exceptions. The system prepares the evidence for that decision.
The intake journal separates documents ready for review from exceptions. Each invoice shows the proposal, supplier precedent, and purchasing check. Handling time and the share accepted without changes are measured in the client's process.
Three views for accounts payable
Intake journal
Invoices ready for review and documents requiring clarification.
Invoice record
Proposed account, cost center, supplier history, and source data.
Matching check
Invoice, purchase order, and receipt compared with a clear hold reason.
System screens
See how the system works in practice
These desktop and mobile screenshots come from the running application. They show the process and the points where a person makes the decision.
- Screens
- 10
- px
- 1440 · 390
- 021440×3055
An invoice record with proposed account, cost center, and supplier precedent. - 031440×1100
Line-level matching against the purchase order and goods receipt.
Open the remaining screen archive (7)
- 041440×1100
Proposed entry and operator decision - 051440×1100
Postings to hand over - 061440×1100
Supplier file - 071440×1100
A supplier card - 081440×1100
Chart of accounts - 091440×1100
Control thresholds - 101440×1100
Reading measurement and limits
Technology stack
The model proposes; rules verify
Anthropic produces a proposal in a closed schema. Pydantic and code enforce required fields and readiness conditions. PostgreSQL stores invoices, decisions, and the trace.
- Anthropic SDK
- a direct, bounded model call with a typed response contract
- FastAPI + Pydantic
- receives the document and enforces the closed schema of fields and decisions
- PostgreSQL 17 with pgvector
- stores invoices, suppliers, orders, and the trace of every decision
- Next.js + React
- renders the payables desk: queue, invoice card, line differences
- Docker Compose
- three containers (postgres, api, web) started with one command
The client receives the code, instructions, test data, and documentation. The system runs on the client side. ERP, KSeF, and ledger connections require separate integrations.
Technical details and measurements
The working loop
Every invoice receives the same checks
The system prepares a proposal, checks required fields, and compares the documents. The accountant receives the result with its basis and a list of missing information.
Invoice and supplier history
Account and cost-center proposal
Purchase order and receipt check
Missing data or mismatch → clarification
Accountant approves the coding
System architecture
Invoice, supplier history, document checks, and audit
The model returns a proposal in a closed format. Rules check completeness and consistency. The database records the run, and the interface presents the result to the accountant.
- 01
Input
An invoice with supplier context.
The API receives invoice text and a short supplier-history summary: precedent count, usual account and cost center, and control flags. The model receives neither order nor receipt documents.
- 02
Schema
A closed contract of fields and decisions.
The model can answer only inside a validated schema: supplier and invoice data, account, cost center, decision, reason, and confidence. The three-way match result is not part of this schema.
- 03
Precedent
The basis stands beside the proposal.
An available supplier precedent stands beside the proposal and opens its source document. Separate code compares item, quantity, net unit price, and net value across invoice, order, and receipt.
- 04
Review and trace
Gaps come to the surface.
A missing account or cost center, or a blocking variance, routes the document to the accountant. Every run records its decision, usage, and cost.
Why no agent framework
One bounded model call and a deterministic line check need no graph or tool loop. The response has a closed schema, the three-way check runs separately in code, and the accountant makes the operational decision. Fewer moving parts mean a shorter audit and fewer places where a proposal could lose its basis.
- The model response passes schema validation before reaching the screen
- The order and receipt line check runs separately in code
- A missing account, cost center, or blocking variance forces review
- The accountant approves the entry or sends the document for clarification
Want to assess a similar process in your company?
- A 30-minute call with the engineer who would lead the work.
- A review of the processes that cost you the most time and money.
- A written summary of what to automate first and the likely cost range.
Times are shown in your own time zone. We work with clients across time zones.
The scan is free and creates no obligation. If automation is unlikely to pay off, the written recommendation will say so.