BY NUMBER7 AITRANSACTION INTELLIGENCE
Find invoices that look correct but are not ready to proceed.
AIdaptIQ connects document evidence with vendor identity, arithmetic, purchase context, accounting treatment, policy and authority before an invoice becomes an accounting action.
From source claim to supported decision.
QUANTITY MATCH · INV-2048
PURCHASE ORDER500 ordered
GOODS RECEIPT300 received
INVOICE500 claimed
Receipt gap → warehouse evidence request
Read what the invoice actually claims
Evidence stays attached to the extracted values.
Inspect stage records
SOURCEInvoice page 2 · line 4Grounded
QUANTITY500 unitsClaim
UNIT PRICE₹840Claim
Connect the purchase context
Source accuracy and payable readiness are different.
Inspect stage records
PO-1086500 units orderedCommitment
GRN-4102300 units receivedEvidence
INV-2048500 units invoicedClaim
Expose the unsupported quantity
500 invoiced − 300 received = 200 unsupported.
Inspect stage records
ARITHMETIC500 × ₹840 = ₹4,20,000Consistent
MATCH200 units lack receipt supportHold
SOURCEInvoice and GRN referencesLinked
Ask for the missing evidence
The reviewer should not reconstruct the transaction.
Inspect stage records
CAUSEReceipt gapNamed
OWNERWarehouse ownerRequest
NEXT STATERe-check after evidence returnsPending
Select a stage to pause and inspect the detail.
Inspect the source detail
INVOICE / PAGE 2500 units × ₹840PO-1086₹4,20,000
CORRECT FIELD · UNSUPPORTED PAYABLE
500 × ₹840 is correct. The receipt supports only 300 units.
Transaction intelligence separates reading accuracy from the evidence required for the next financial action.
The invoice claim was extracted from page 2, line 4.
Quantity and unit price reconcile to the invoice total.
Two hundred invoiced units remain unsupported by GRN-4102.
OUTCOMEHold the unsupported quantity
Send the receipt gap and linked sources to the warehouse owner. Replay the control when evidence returns.
DIRECT ANSWER
What is transaction intelligence?
It connects source-grounded document claims to identity, accounting context, controls, authority and action history so a workflow can decide whether it is safe to continue.
EVIDENCE REVIEW MODEL
Evidence beside the financial claims it supports.
Reviewers inspect the original document, structured values and control state together.
PO-1086
500 orderedQuantity committed
GRN-4102
300 receivedQuantity supported
INV-2048
500 invoiced500 units × ₹840
SOURCE EXCERPT · INVOICE PAGE 2, LINE 4
PO referencePO-1086
Quantity × unit price500 × ₹840
Line amount₹4,20,000
MATCH RESULT200 units unsupported
300 received + 200 still need evidence
Hold → ask the warehouse owner for the remaining receipt → re-check.
- 01Original source document
- 02Header evidence and validation
- 03Line-item claims and checks
EVIDENCE BEFORE CONFIDENCE
Every material claim should point back to its source.
Corrections create new evidence and preserve the prior history.
Source
Page, region and original text.
Assertion
Normalized value with evidence and confidence.
Context
Vendor, PO, receipt, account and prior treatment.
Control
Identity, arithmetic, duplicate, matching and authority.
Decision
Proceed, hold or request the missing evidence.
TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
Extraction confidence asks whether the field was read. Transaction confidence asks whether it is safe to continue.
Extraction
Was the value read correctly from the document?
Identity
Does it belong to the correct vendor and entity?
Accounting
Are amounts, tax, coding and purchase evidence coherent?
Authority
Have required controls and approvals been satisfied?
WHEN THE SYSTEM IS UNSURE
Abstention becomes an explicit operating state.
Preserve the evidence, name the failed condition, route it to the right owner and replay controls after correction.
Do not guess
Withhold unsupported automatic action.
Explain the hold
Show the cause and material consequence.
Return with evidence
Attach the source and resolution to the transaction.
Inspect transaction intelligence on your documents.
Bring the invoices whose fields are correct but outcomes still require review.