Customer proof

What changed in three customer operations.

AP delivery, purchase-order intake and freight reconciliation. Each result belongs to a separate workflow, with its evidence and limits visible.

Find a relevant case Evaluate your own workflow

Reported customer outcomes

Three workflows. Three different changes.

Editorial illustration of separate client document streams, completed work and client-specific exception trays — Editorial operating illustration. Client context stays separate as routine work and unresolved exceptions take different paths.

Finance BPO · Multi-client AP

Pransform Inc.

For multi-client delivery teams

12 → 3reported AP staffing requirement

50K+ AP documents per month across 300+ client companies. Routine processing and unresolved client work took different paths.

Before

Manual capture + layered quality checks

With AIdaptIQ

Validated bills + client-specific exceptions

Read Pransform Inc.’s caseCustomer-reported · workflow-specific

Editorial illustration of an email PDF, phone photograph and scanned purchase order converging into structured order lines — Editorial intake illustration. The published workflow retains review for ambiguous descriptions and uncertain product mappings.

Industrial distribution · Purchase orders

JSK Automation

For mixed-channel order intake

10×reported faster purchase-order intake

Email PDFs, scans and WhatsApp-originated images became structured order lines, SKU mapping and review.

Before

Separate inputs + manual retyping

With AIdaptIQ

Structured lines + reviewed SKU mapping

Read JSK Automation’s caseCustomer-reported · workflow-specific

Editorial illustration of a lorry receipt, freight invoice and delivery evidence with an 18,000kg versus 17,500kg discrepancy — Illustrative freight evidence. LR and proof of delivery have different roles and must not be substituted for each other.

Freight operations · Reconciliation

Fairlorry

For connected freight evidence

2–3 daysprior manual reconciliation cycle

Batch matching moved toward continuous, exception-led checks around the existing transport management system.

Before

Manual reconciliation in batches

With AIdaptIQ

Checks as freight evidence arrives

Read Fairlorry’s caseCustomer-reported · workflow-specific

Customer-reported figures; not independently audited and not combined into a product-wide benchmark.

Follow the workflow and measurement scope behind each result. Read the customer evidence ledger · How to evaluate these results

Choose your next question

See a result. Understand the work. Test the fit.

What changed for a customer?

Read the named cases above, including what remained human.

Compare customer operations

Where does existing automation stop?

Inspect an explanatory AP workflow after an earlier automation layer.

Explore the workflow reference

Will it work on your documents?

Define the same sample, checks and completed outcome before comparing systems.

Use the evaluation method

Inspect the source first

A practical way to rehearse the evaluation.

LAB-101 invoice from the Invoice Error Lab — LAB-101 · original example PDF.

Open the invoice. Follow the check. Record what the product actually does.

The Invoice Error Lab contains arithmetic errors, invoice bundles, client coding, receipt changes and a clarification reply. Its expected answers are separate from live product results.

Open the worked examples Download the comparison guide

Next step

Use your workflow as the test.

Choose representative documents and count the checks, follow-up and human work needed to reach your accounting outcome.

Request a diagnostic