One-Workflow Pilot · Accounts payable
The One-Workflow Pilot takes one invoice-intake path from current-state map to tested AP automation. It captures agreed fields, checks duplicates and matching rules, routes exceptions to named people, and produces acceptance evidence before handoff. Payment release stays outside the automated path unless separately scoped and approved.
Start asynchronously with a redacted invoice, the current routing rules, and the exception that creates the most rework.
Written pilot boundary
The exact systems, fields, rules, exception owners, permissions, and acceptance tests are documented first. The pilot proves a narrow operating path; it does not assume every AP variation belongs in version one.
Payment release, vendor-master changes, bank-detail updates, a full ERP replacement, and unrestricted production write access remain manual or separately scoped.
A PDF arrives in the fictional AP inbox from an allowed sender.
Invoice number, vendor, date, currency, PO, tax, and total are extracted.
Required fields, vendor status, duplicate keys, and extraction confidence are checked.
The invoice is compared with the available PO and receipt under written tolerances.
Missing data, mismatches, and policy exceptions move to a named review queue.
The assigned person accepts, corrects, rejects, or escalates the invoice.
An accepted record is staged for posting or exported in the agreed format.
The test result, decision, exception, and output reference are written to the evidence log.
Exception queue
Human decision points
Control design
The final control set depends on the systems and policy in scope. The fictional pilot illustrates the control questions resolved before production use.
Allowed inboxes, senders, formats, and attachment limits are explicit. Unexpected inputs move to review.
Low-confidence extraction never silently becomes an accounting record; the field and source are shown to a person.
The agreed vendor, invoice number, amount, and date keys are checked before any downstream write.
PO, receipt, tax, quantity, and amount tolerances are written and tested rather than inferred at runtime.
The workflow receives only the permissions required for the agreed handoff, with payment release excluded by default.
Retries use a unique record key, and failed writes move to a visible queue so they do not create duplicate postings.
Acceptance-test matrix
These fictional examples show the shape of an acceptance matrix. The real test fixtures, owners, tolerances, and required evidence are agreed for the pilot before build work.
| ID | Fictional scenario | Expected workflow result | Human route | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP-01 | Clean PO invoice | Capture succeeds; duplicate and match checks pass; record is staged | Policy-defined approval | Source reference, extracted fields, match result, staged-record ID |
| AP-02 | Repeated vendor invoice number | Potential duplicate is blocked from downstream handoff | AP analyst | Duplicate key, prior-record reference, routing event |
| AP-03 | Invoice exceeds PO tolerance | Record remains unposted and moves to the exception queue | Budget owner | Invoice and PO values, tolerance result, approval decision |
| AP-04 | Low-confidence total | Extracted value is held for correction | AP analyst | Source image, confidence value, corrected field, reviewer |
| AP-05 | New vendor or changed bank data | Workflow quarantines the invoice; no master-data update occurs | Finance administrator | Risk flag, reviewer decision, separate vendor-control reference |
| AP-06 | Approval threshold exceeded | Invoice waits for the named approver | Delegated approver | Threshold rule, approval event, timestamp, approver identity |
| AP-07 | Accounting-system write fails | No duplicate record is created; item moves to retry or manual queue | Finance administrator | Error response, unique record key, retry or handoff event |
| AP-08 | Workflow permission is denied | Processing stops and the workflow owner is notified | Workflow owner | Access error, alert event, recovery decision |
Demonstration rows only. Passing these examples would not by itself prove a production workflow is ready.
Evidence outputs
The exact package follows the written scope. A typical pilot handoff can include the following inspectable artifacts.
Inputs, systems, rules, owners, exclusions, and the agreed end state.
Known failure paths, named owners, allowed decisions, and escalation rules.
Expected and observed results, pass or fail status, tester, and evidence reference.
Representative decision, exception, error, and output records from the test environment.
How to monitor, pause, retry, recover, change rules, and identify the accountable owner.
Anything untested, excluded, environment-dependent, or still requiring a business decision.
Common questions
It is a bounded implementation for one invoice-intake path. We document the process, configure the agreed rules and exception routes, test the workflow against written acceptance criteria, and hand over the evidence and runbook.
No. Payment release is outside the default pilot scope. Posting can remain staged, sandboxed, or export-only until the agreed tests, permissions, and human approvals are complete.
We start with a redacted invoice set, the fields you capture, the matching and approval policy, common exceptions, and the intended accounting-system handoff. Live credentials and production data are handled only after scope and access controls are agreed.
The acceptance matrix is agreed before build work. Each scenario has an expected route, required human decision, and evidence output; the pilot is accepted only against those written tests.
One workflow in