The controller opens a prepared report and can trace every number back to its source.
Instead of joining exports during month-end, the team receives one report with a source for every value. Figures and commentary are checked separately. If the commentary contains a number absent from the report data, publication stops.
Verified demonstration scope
The system prepared report commentary. A separate check verified every number and source reference before publication.
- Recorded test
- Verified demonstration scope
- What we tested
- Management reporting
- Measurement data
- test data
Problem, solution, and result
Why month-end reporting takes so long
Report data comes from ERP, CRM, and a controlling workbook. The team reconciles definitions, copies figures, and checks whether the commentary still matches the final numbers.
What the system does
It imports three sources, reconciles values, and builds the report from agreed definitions. Every figure keeps a source reference. The controller reviews the commentary before publication.
What we tested
The system prepared report commentary. A separate check verified every number and source reference before publication.
For whom
This fits a company that assembles its monthly management report from several sources and must show where every number came from.
Sources → reconciliation → report → approval
- 01Every figure has a source reference
- 02Commentary passes a separate check
- 03The controller approves publication
- Best for
- Companies assembling monthly management reports from several sources
- Input data
- Period exports from ERP, CRM, and a controlling file
- Human decision
- The controller reviews commentary and exceptions, then approves publication
- Cost
- About PLN 0.0010 for the recorded commentary draft and the number-and-source check.
- Security
- A number without a source or a missing reference stops the commentary before publication.
- Audit trail
- Every number links to a source, and every discrepancy retains the check result.
- Similar system build
- from €3,500 net (approx. $3,800) · 2–6 weeks
Controller approval
Who owns the report
The system assembles the material and identifies inconsistencies. The controller confirms metric definitions, evaluates the commentary, and approves publication. Unusual variances and missing data remain in a review queue.
- Cost
- About PLN 0.0010 for the recorded commentary draft and the number-and-source check.
- Security
- A number without a source or a missing reference stops the commentary before publication.
What the test does not show
The demonstration uses fictional data, and 24 report issues do not prove integration quality for the client's systems. Deployment requires agreed metric definitions, source owners, and reconciliation tolerances.
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
Assumption: 80 working hours
With the system
Scenario: 32 working hours
Time or cost saved
Not a client outcome · 36-60 h range, 48 h base
- Volume
- Modelled scenario · 1 cycle/mo
- Formula
- 80 h - 32 h
- 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 views
The controller analyzes variances and approves the report. The system assembles data and retains its source.
The controller starts from a reconciled report and a short exception list. Every figure can be checked without hunting for the right export. Time moves from copying data to analyzing variances and approving commentary.
The report, exceptions, and figure sources.
Monthly report
Figures, metrics, and commentary in one document.
Exception list
Missing data and differences outside the agreed tolerance.
Figure source
The query or source record available beside every number.
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
- 8
- px
- 1440 · 390
- 021440×2539
Inconsistencies awaiting resolution. - 031440×1100
Mobile report view.
Open the remaining screen archive (5)
- 041440×1100
Differences to explain - 051440×1100
Where one number comes from - 061440×1100
Issue returned by a person - 071440×1100
No response from a source - 081440×1100
Archive of 24 issues
Technology stack
Plain Python without a model SDK, because the core of this control must repeat bit for bit.
Comparing two numbers and checking digits are deterministic tasks, so they use a pure function and a data schema. FastAPI with Pydantic keeps figures separate from commentary in the types, and PostgreSQL stores the series, reconciliations, and trace. The numerical controls remain reproducible regardless of the model used to draft commentary.
- Python 3.13
- the deterministic core of reconciliation and the digit check, with no model SDK
- FastAPI + Pydantic
- the report contract, with figures and commentary separated in the types
- PostgreSQL 17
- period series, sources, reconciliation verdicts, and the audit trace
- Next.js + React
- the management issue on screen, with number provenance and marginalia
- Docker (postgres, api, web)
- three services; the API and database stay on the internal network, only web faces out
The client receives the code, report schema, tests, and documentation. The numerical control path runs on the client's infrastructure and remains separate from the model used to draft commentary.
Technical details and measurements
How the system works
The system assembles the report and shows exceptions. The controller approves its meaning.
Data is first reconciled through agreed rules. Figures and draft commentary are then prepared. The control catches unsupported numbers and missing references before publication.
ERP, CRM, and controlling data
Definitions and values are reconciled
Every report figure links to a source
Unsupported commentary numbers stop publication
The controller reviews exceptions and approves
System architecture
Schema, reconcile, renderer, and marginalia.
Data types hold the separation of figures from commentary, source reconciliation is deterministic, and the foreign-digit block follows from the renderer's construction, so each of these boundaries is tested without a model call.
- 01
Schema
Figures apart, words apart.
The report has two spaces: submitted figures with a source field, and editorial commentary. A Pydantic type holds that boundary, so it does not depend on team discipline.
- 02
Reconcile
A pure function, an explicit tolerance.
Reconciliation compares source values and stores the verdict with the figure. For the same data and the same tolerance, the result is identical bit for bit.
- 03
Renderer
Allowed numbers come from the figures.
Admissible digit representations are built from the submitted figure set. Commentary with another digit or a missing reference stops before publication.
- 04
Marginalia
Discrepancies are the report's content.
Differences between sources beyond tolerance land in the document's margin with provenance, for the data owners to explain.
Why there is no model in the control path
Comparing two numbers is deterministic. A pure function and a data schema perform the check without a model or orchestration layer.
- The reconciliation verdict repeats bit for bit
- The foreign-digit block is built into the report's construction
- A figure's provenance is part of the document
- Interpreting the results belongs to people
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.