● B2B offer — Accountancy practices
Accountancy practice: client questions handled, documents chased
A practice spends a great deal of time on two things: answering its clients' everyday questions and asking for the documents that are missing. Your agent answers from the files and your procedures, citing its source, and prepares the document chasers file by file. Every client is strictly partitioned. Hosted in France: your clients' accounting data stays with you. The staff member approves the answers that commit the practice.
Hosted in France
Client files partitioned
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Client accounting support · hosted in France
A client is asking where their VAT for the month stands.
Answer drawn from their file: documents received, documents outstanding, progress on the return.
Every element refers back to the document or the entry it comes from.
Two supporting documents are missing: the chaser is prepared for this client.
🔗 Sourced · the file of the client concerned only
Every element refers back to the document or the entry it comes from.
Two supporting documents are missing: the chaser is prepared for this client.
🔗 Sourced · the file of the client concerned only
The client is asking whether a particular expense is deductible.
I gather the elements from the file and the practice's internal position on this type of expense.
The answer is put to the staff member: tax advice engages the practice's liability, so it does not go out without approval.
✎ Support · material gathered, advice approved by you
The answer is put to the staff member: tax advice engages the practice's liability, so it does not go out without approval.
✎ Support · material gathered, advice approved by you
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Files hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The practice's staff member decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent accounting support agent answers your clients' everyday questions from their file alone, cites the original document or entry and prepares the chasers for missing documents. The files are strictly partitioned and any advice is approved by a staff member. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your clients' accounting data stays with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Your teams write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your clients reach it on WhatsApp Business, your website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
practice uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of client files is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your practice?
Answering everyday questions quickly and getting the documents in on time: those are the two levers of a calm practice at year-end.
! The issue
What a practice is asked for divides into everyday questions — progress, documents outstanding, deadlines — and advice. The first are handled from the file; the second calls for the practice's signature. The agent takes on the first, systematically citing the original document, and prepares the advice without ever sending it on its own.
✓ Our answer
The staff member gets time back for advice, with files whose missing documents are chased as they go. The partitioning is strict: an agent working on one file has access to no other. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your clients' accounting data, covered by professional confidentiality, is entrusted to no third party.
The decisive point
Your clients' accounting data: sovereignty & compliance
Your clients' accounting data is covered by professional confidentiality, and partitioning between files is an absolute requirement. Here is how it is upheld.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no accounting data and no client document leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your client files and your accounting documents: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your clients' accounting data, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your practice and its internal positions.
One file at a time, with no bridge
An agent working on one file has access to no other; encryption, role-based access and logging of every file consulted.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no tax advice and no return is sent without approval; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For files under tax audit, in difficulty or subject to a sale, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The company in this demonstration
Fictional companyPerrelet & Associés — independent accounting firm
- Sector
- Accounting, payroll and legal services — micro-businesses, trades, retailers and independent professionals
- Headcount
- 26 staff, including 3 certified accountants, 14 account managers, 4 accounting assistants, 3 in payroll and 2 in administration
- Client base
- 214 client files — construction, retail, restaurants, independent healthcare professionals
- Volume
- 340 client enquiries a month, 11,400 supporting documents received each month, 186 files on monthly VAT
- Tools in place
- Production accounting software, client document portal, the firm's mailbox and a 9-year document store — the agent plugs into them, nothing is replaced
- Who decides
- The account manager approves every answer that goes out to a client; the certified accountant signs the advice; the quality partner settles the firm's internal doctrine
- Room for improvement
- Of 340 monthly enquiries, 247 are routine questions that take up 55 % of handling time; a first reply goes out at D+1.8 on average; 88 files out of 214 arrive incomplete at month-end close and the chase for documents goes out 9 days later
Perrelet & Associés wants to give time back to advisory work, which is what its clients pay for and what no software does in its place. The agent runs on local inference on a machine at the firm and plugs into the production software, the document portal, the mailbox and the document store: it arrives with the work done, the firm approves and signs, and each client file stays sealed off from the other 213. The exchanges below cover one quarter, from the reopening of the 214 files to the measured review.
This company, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real client.
Client accounting support · hosted in France
I read your 214 client files and your nine years of document store overnight — 1,040,000 documents — then sorted, one by one, the 340 enquiries your clients sent you last month.
The document store is the warehouse where the firm has been filing its clients' paperwork since 2017.
Here is the gap I measured, and it is what commands the gain: of those 340 enquiries, 247 can be answered in full from the client's own file — 73 %. Not one calls for professional judgement: it calls for opening the file and reading. They still go out at D+1.8 on average, because opening three screens on the 15th of the month costs more than the answer itself.
The 247, in order of frequency:
· 96 “where does my VAT return stand this month?”
· 58 “did you receive the document I sent you?”
· 41 “what is my interim result?”
· 33 “when is my next deadline?”
· 19 “can you send me that document again?”
The other 93 are your actual trade: 61 enquiries that touch on advice — those carry the certified accountant's signature, and I build each into a signable file — and 32 administrative requests.
What that gives you back: answering routine questions took 55 % of the time your staff spend on enquiries; it now takes 9 %.
My proposal, and I start the moment you agree: open on the 96 VAT progress requests — the most frequent, the most mechanical, the easiest to source, and the one that costs you most in interruptions. situation-review_214-files-340-enquiries.pdfWhat 73 % of requests have in common
⛓ Sourced · the firm's document store (1,040,000 documents, 9 years), shared mailbox, log of the month's enquiries
The document store is the warehouse where the firm has been filing its clients' paperwork since 2017.
Here is the gap I measured, and it is what commands the gain: of those 340 enquiries, 247 can be answered in full from the client's own file — 73 %. Not one calls for professional judgement: it calls for opening the file and reading. They still go out at D+1.8 on average, because opening three screens on the 15th of the month costs more than the answer itself.
The 247, in order of frequency:
· 96 “where does my VAT return stand this month?”
· 58 “did you receive the document I sent you?”
· 41 “what is my interim result?”
· 33 “when is my next deadline?”
· 19 “can you send me that document again?”
The other 93 are your actual trade: 61 enquiries that touch on advice — those carry the certified accountant's signature, and I build each into a signable file — and 32 administrative requests.
What that gives you back: answering routine questions took 55 % of the time your staff spend on enquiries; it now takes 9 %.
My proposal, and I start the moment you agree: open on the 96 VAT progress requests — the most frequent, the most mechanical, the easiest to source, and the one that costs you most in interruptions. situation-review_214-files-340-enquiries.pdfWhat 73 % of requests have in common
⛓ Sourced · the firm's document store (1,040,000 documents, 9 years), shared mailbox, log of the month's enquiries
Rovel Masonry needs its 2023 ten-year construction insurance certificate for a site. Three people looked for it this morning and nobody can find it.
It is in their file, filed on 06/02/2023 — and I am giving you the three documents that go with it, because one of them changes the answer you give the client.
The ten-year certificate proves the company is covered for a decade against damage affecting the soundness of the structure: a project owner asks for it before releasing the first instalment.
· The 2023 certificate, valid from 01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023, filed under the name SCAN_0043.pdf. That is the one you asked for.
· The 2024 certificate, filed on 11/03/2024 — if the site started this year, that is the one the client must produce.
· The 2025 premium notice, paid, which establishes continuity of cover between the two years.
· The 2025 certificate, which I have added to the file's document chase with a note about the site under way: that is exactly the paper that releases an instalment, and it will arrive before the project owner asks.
How I find it when the file name says nothing: I read the content. The insurer, the policy number, the period covered and the declared activity are enough to identify the document. Of your 1,040,000 documents, 84,000 carry a name like SCAN_0043.pdf or doc(2).pdf — and those are the ones people hunt for on a Friday evening.
What that search was costing you: your timesheets put the line “document search” at 44 hours a month across the firm, or 35 % of the time spent inside a file; it now takes 6 % — 6.3 staff-days handed back every month.
What I suggest: that I index portal deposits continuously. Indexing renames nothing and moves nothing: your paths, your folder trees and your habits work exactly as they do today. search-within-the-file_what-was-found.pdf84,000 unnamed documents, indexed by content
⛓ Sourced · Rovel Masonry file only, the firm's document store, quarterly timesheets
The ten-year certificate proves the company is covered for a decade against damage affecting the soundness of the structure: a project owner asks for it before releasing the first instalment.
· The 2023 certificate, valid from 01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023, filed under the name SCAN_0043.pdf. That is the one you asked for.
· The 2024 certificate, filed on 11/03/2024 — if the site started this year, that is the one the client must produce.
· The 2025 premium notice, paid, which establishes continuity of cover between the two years.
· The 2025 certificate, which I have added to the file's document chase with a note about the site under way: that is exactly the paper that releases an instalment, and it will arrive before the project owner asks.
How I find it when the file name says nothing: I read the content. The insurer, the policy number, the period covered and the declared activity are enough to identify the document. Of your 1,040,000 documents, 84,000 carry a name like SCAN_0043.pdf or doc(2).pdf — and those are the ones people hunt for on a Friday evening.
What that search was costing you: your timesheets put the line “document search” at 44 hours a month across the firm, or 35 % of the time spent inside a file; it now takes 6 % — 6.3 staff-days handed back every month.
What I suggest: that I index portal deposits continuously. Indexing renames nothing and moves nothing: your paths, your folder trees and your habits work exactly as they do today. search-within-the-file_what-was-found.pdf84,000 unnamed documents, indexed by content
⛓ Sourced · Rovel Masonry file only, the firm's document store, quarterly timesheets
Rovel is asking how the other construction companies we look after handle long-distance assignment allowances. We do have that information, technically.
The note for Rovel is written, quantified and ready to sign — and it owes nothing to your other clients' files, which is precisely what makes it unassailable. Here it is in three steps.
1. What governs it. A client's file is covered by professional secrecy: what sits with Kervadec belongs to Kervadec. That is architecture, not a setting: the agent open on Rovel sees Rovel. That sealing is your best argument in front of a director hesitating to hand you the accounts of a business sale.
2. The route that gives Rovel what it asks for, and I have already taken it. The answer sits in your internal doctrine — the written positions the firm has settled on and applies across every file — and in the scales published by the tax authorities, which I quote with their publication date. The note is built: the definition of a long-distance assignment allowance — the one paid to an employee whose distant worksite prevents them going home each evening —, the records to keep, the three cases your firm has already settled and the two points where the Rovel file calls for a document. It awaits the certified accountant's signature.
3. What stays off the route, and I will name it. Taking a figure out of another file, even aggregated, even anonymised: you look after 9 construction companies, and an average over 9 is de-anonymised with two subtractions. The route I took delivers the same service and holds up in front of anyone.
What you gain in passing: every file opening is logged — file, staff member, time, document consulted. Over the quarter: 4,812 logged consultations, zero out-of-remit access, and the statement is produced in one minute against three days of reconstruction.
My proposal: that I turn this log into a one-page monthly statement, ready to attach to your tender responses. partitioning_one-file-at-a-time.pdf4,812 logged consultations, 0 out-of-remit access
✎ Framework · partitioning architecture, quarterly consultation log, the firm's internal doctrine
1. What governs it. A client's file is covered by professional secrecy: what sits with Kervadec belongs to Kervadec. That is architecture, not a setting: the agent open on Rovel sees Rovel. That sealing is your best argument in front of a director hesitating to hand you the accounts of a business sale.
2. The route that gives Rovel what it asks for, and I have already taken it. The answer sits in your internal doctrine — the written positions the firm has settled on and applies across every file — and in the scales published by the tax authorities, which I quote with their publication date. The note is built: the definition of a long-distance assignment allowance — the one paid to an employee whose distant worksite prevents them going home each evening —, the records to keep, the three cases your firm has already settled and the two points where the Rovel file calls for a document. It awaits the certified accountant's signature.
3. What stays off the route, and I will name it. Taking a figure out of another file, even aggregated, even anonymised: you look after 9 construction companies, and an average over 9 is de-anonymised with two subtractions. The route I took delivers the same service and holds up in front of anyone.
What you gain in passing: every file opening is logged — file, staff member, time, document consulted. Over the quarter: 4,812 logged consultations, zero out-of-remit access, and the statement is produced in one minute against three days of reconstruction.
My proposal: that I turn this log into a one-page monthly statement, ready to attach to your tender responses. partitioning_one-file-at-a-time.pdf4,812 logged consultations, 0 out-of-remit access
✎ Framework · partitioning architecture, quarterly consultation log, the firm's internal doctrine
Rovel is asking where their VAT stands this month. It is the question we get most, and it always has to be redone from scratch.
The answer is written, and every line points back to the document or the entry it comes from. Here is what it says.
Document status for March: 148 expected, 146 received, 2 missing. The 146 are matched to entries in the production software, one by one.
The figures, with their source:
· VAT collected: €18,642 — sales journal, entries 2601 to 2688.
· VAT deductible: €7,815 — purchase journal, entries 4102 to 4197. Deductible VAT is what the business paid its suppliers and now subtracts from the tax collected on its sales.
· Interim balance payable: €10,827.
The two missing documents, named and quantified: the March business account statement, and a purchase invoice of €4,210.00 excl. VAT from supplier Sablières Menou, whose payment of 18/03 appears in account 512 with no invoice against it. That single invoice carries €842 of deductible VAT — 7.8 % of the balance announced. The client learns in the same message that the figure will move, and by how much: that is what separates information from a number thrown out.
What that changes on turnaround: this answer used to go out at D+1.8 on average, because it means opening three screens and recounting. It is ready in 11 minutes, including the account manager's review.
My proposal: that the chase for the two documents goes out in the same message as the answer, with the direct upload link. A client who has just read “you are missing €842 of deductible VAT” sends the invoice the same day — and your March balance is final before the deadline. sourced-answer_march-vat_rovel.pdfEvery figure with the entry it comes from
⛓ Sourced · Rovel Masonry file only — sales and purchase journals, account 512, document portal deposits
Document status for March: 148 expected, 146 received, 2 missing. The 146 are matched to entries in the production software, one by one.
The figures, with their source:
· VAT collected: €18,642 — sales journal, entries 2601 to 2688.
· VAT deductible: €7,815 — purchase journal, entries 4102 to 4197. Deductible VAT is what the business paid its suppliers and now subtracts from the tax collected on its sales.
· Interim balance payable: €10,827.
The two missing documents, named and quantified: the March business account statement, and a purchase invoice of €4,210.00 excl. VAT from supplier Sablières Menou, whose payment of 18/03 appears in account 512 with no invoice against it. That single invoice carries €842 of deductible VAT — 7.8 % of the balance announced. The client learns in the same message that the figure will move, and by how much: that is what separates information from a number thrown out.
What that changes on turnaround: this answer used to go out at D+1.8 on average, because it means opening three screens and recounting. It is ready in 11 minutes, including the account manager's review.
My proposal: that the chase for the two documents goes out in the same message as the answer, with the direct upload link. A client who has just read “you are missing €842 of deductible VAT” sends the invoice the same day — and your March balance is final before the deadline. sourced-answer_march-vat_rovel.pdfEvery figure with the entry it comes from
⛓ Sourced · Rovel Masonry file only — sales and purchase journals, account 512, document portal deposits
Out of the 247 routine questions a month, how many do you handle alone — and above all, what comes back to us?
228 answers written and ready to send, 19 landing by name on the right staff member's desk, each with the file already built.
The 228: answer drafted, source quoted line by line, missing documents quantified, next deadline recalled. They go into a batch review queue: 1 minute 40 per answer, first thing, in a single sitting.
The 19 that come back to you, each arriving with what it takes to settle it:
· 6 files under tax audit. Anything leaving them goes through the quality partner, and I hand her the exchange history, the documents quoted and the drafted answer on one screen: she approves in 4 minutes rather than reopening the file.
· 4 clients behind on fees. I attach the account statement to the answer, the partner sends both together — 3 of the 4 paid within a fortnight.
· 5 questions that start routine and end advisory — “where does my VAT stand, and can I defer it?”. I answer the first half and build the second into a signable file.
· 3 clients in insolvency proceedings, where I add the current list of information recipients.
· 1 complaint, to which I attach the full file chronology, settled in 48 hours.
The gain, plainly: the item cost 49 hours a month, or 55 % of enquiry handling time. It now costs 9 % — 7.0 staff-days handed back every month.
And the 61 advisory enquiries gain in the exchange: I build each into a signable file, facts sourced and answer drafted, and the certified accountant signs in 22 minutes instead of 48.
What I suggest next: hand me the queue of 228 on Monday, and I will open the 96 VAT requests in parallel. enquiry-sorting_228-prepared-19-escalated.pdfThe 5 escalation grounds, file by file
⛓ Sourced · log of the month's enquiries, file status in the production software, aged fee balance
The 228: answer drafted, source quoted line by line, missing documents quantified, next deadline recalled. They go into a batch review queue: 1 minute 40 per answer, first thing, in a single sitting.
The 19 that come back to you, each arriving with what it takes to settle it:
· 6 files under tax audit. Anything leaving them goes through the quality partner, and I hand her the exchange history, the documents quoted and the drafted answer on one screen: she approves in 4 minutes rather than reopening the file.
· 4 clients behind on fees. I attach the account statement to the answer, the partner sends both together — 3 of the 4 paid within a fortnight.
· 5 questions that start routine and end advisory — “where does my VAT stand, and can I defer it?”. I answer the first half and build the second into a signable file.
· 3 clients in insolvency proceedings, where I add the current list of information recipients.
· 1 complaint, to which I attach the full file chronology, settled in 48 hours.
The gain, plainly: the item cost 49 hours a month, or 55 % of enquiry handling time. It now costs 9 % — 7.0 staff-days handed back every month.
And the 61 advisory enquiries gain in the exchange: I build each into a signable file, facts sourced and answer drafted, and the certified accountant signs in 22 minutes instead of 48.
What I suggest next: hand me the queue of 228 on Monday, and I will open the 96 VAT requests in parallel. enquiry-sorting_228-prepared-19-escalated.pdfThe 5 escalation grounds, file by file
⛓ Sourced · log of the month's enquiries, file status in the production software, aged fee balance
And does the client know they are writing to a machine? We do not want that thrown back at us one day.
They know from the first word, it is built into the welcome message, and it has become a selling point for the firm.
What requires it: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The disclosure goes out in the recipient's language, and the client gets a human in one word, with no justification required.
What the disclosure says exactly: that this is the firm's assistant, that it answers from their own file, that its answer is reviewed by the account manager in charge before it goes out, and who to write to in order to speak to a person.
What it produced at your firm: across the 741 exchanges of the quarter, 34 clients asked for a human — 4.6 %, and they had one within the hour. The other 707 carried on with me because the answer quoted the document. What a client wants is an answer they can check, and they get it in 11 minutes instead of D+1.8.
The measure that closes the subject: across 741 answers prepared and 684 sent, zero went out without a staff member opening and approving it. It is logged line by line, with the approver's name and the time. That is not a promise, it is a record you produce in one minute.
My proposal: that the disclosure also carry the name of the account manager in charge. A client who reads “prepared by the firm's assistant, reviewed by Damien Sorel” knows who they are talking to — and it is your staff member the answer puts forward.
✎ Framework · European AI regulation, Article 50(1), applicable since 2 August 2026 · quarterly approval log
What requires it: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The disclosure goes out in the recipient's language, and the client gets a human in one word, with no justification required.
What the disclosure says exactly: that this is the firm's assistant, that it answers from their own file, that its answer is reviewed by the account manager in charge before it goes out, and who to write to in order to speak to a person.
What it produced at your firm: across the 741 exchanges of the quarter, 34 clients asked for a human — 4.6 %, and they had one within the hour. The other 707 carried on with me because the answer quoted the document. What a client wants is an answer they can check, and they get it in 11 minutes instead of D+1.8.
The measure that closes the subject: across 741 answers prepared and 684 sent, zero went out without a staff member opening and approving it. It is logged line by line, with the approver's name and the time. That is not a promise, it is a record you produce in one minute.
My proposal: that the disclosure also carry the name of the account manager in charge. A client who reads “prepared by the firm's assistant, reviewed by Damien Sorel” knows who they are talking to — and it is your staff member the answer puts forward.
✎ Framework · European AI regulation, Article 50(1), applicable since 2 August 2026 · quarterly approval log
March close: 88 files out of 214 came in incomplete. That is our chronic wound, every month.
1,342 missing documents identified file by file, ranked by what they bring in — and the 88 chase messages are written, ready to go out today.
The close is the moment the firm rules off the accounts for a period: every document has to be there.
How I know a document is missing without anyone telling me: I match bank movements against portal deposits. A payment with no invoice against it is a missing document, and it carries an amount. I then compare with the previous three months: a client who used to send twelve expense claims a month and sends two has not changed habits — they forgot.
The 1,342, broken down:
· 604 bank statements or movement records — the heaviest family and the easiest to obtain.
· 388 purchase invoices, each with the matching payment amount.
· 214 expense claims.
· 136 miscellaneous items — credit notes, VAT records, certificates.
The ranking that changes the result: I chase in order of the deductible VAT at stake, not in alphabetical order. 212 documents carry 71 % of what is at stake: a €38 expense claim and a €14,200 equipment invoice do not call for the same insistence.
What each chase message says: the exact name of the document, the date and amount of the bank movement that calls for it, the direct portal upload link, and your close date. A named request obtains what a “please send us your supporting documents” leaves stranded.
The gain: the item cost 28 hours a month and 40 % of the time spent preparing a close; it now takes 8 % — 4.0 staff-days handed back. And the chase no longer goes out 9 days after the close date: it is ready the same day.
My proposal: approve the 88 files on one screen rather than in 88 emails. You keep the veto file by file — just untick. missing-documents_1342-across-88-files.pdfRanked by the deductible VAT they carry
⛓ Sourced · matching of bank movements against portal deposits, deposit history of the previous 3 months, internal close calendar
The close is the moment the firm rules off the accounts for a period: every document has to be there.
How I know a document is missing without anyone telling me: I match bank movements against portal deposits. A payment with no invoice against it is a missing document, and it carries an amount. I then compare with the previous three months: a client who used to send twelve expense claims a month and sends two has not changed habits — they forgot.
The 1,342, broken down:
· 604 bank statements or movement records — the heaviest family and the easiest to obtain.
· 388 purchase invoices, each with the matching payment amount.
· 214 expense claims.
· 136 miscellaneous items — credit notes, VAT records, certificates.
The ranking that changes the result: I chase in order of the deductible VAT at stake, not in alphabetical order. 212 documents carry 71 % of what is at stake: a €38 expense claim and a €14,200 equipment invoice do not call for the same insistence.
What each chase message says: the exact name of the document, the date and amount of the bank movement that calls for it, the direct portal upload link, and your close date. A named request obtains what a “please send us your supporting documents” leaves stranded.
The gain: the item cost 28 hours a month and 40 % of the time spent preparing a close; it now takes 8 % — 4.0 staff-days handed back. And the chase no longer goes out 9 days after the close date: it is ready the same day.
My proposal: approve the 88 files on one screen rather than in 88 emails. You keep the veto file by file — just untick. missing-documents_1342-across-88-files.pdfRanked by the deductible VAT they carry
⛓ Sourced · matching of bank movements against portal deposits, deposit history of the previous 3 months, internal close calendar
Can you send them yourself? Reviewing 88 emails every month is not something we will do.
Yes, and the mandate that lets me is already drafted: capped, dated, withdrawable in one word. You read it in three minutes and it runs tonight.
Why a mandate rather than a setting: a message leaving under the Perrelet & Associés letterhead engages your client relationship. It is a delegation — the one you already give an assistant, except that here it is written down and measured.
What the mandate authorises:
· Four document families: bank statements, purchase invoices, expense claims, credit notes. Payroll, legal matters and files under audit stay in your hands.
· Three sends per file per month, on D+0, D+4 and D+9. That is the rhythm that obtains the most without ever wearing a client down.
· A fixed wording, the one you reviewed: I fill in the amounts and the document names.
· Copy to the account manager at the moment of sending, not the next day.
· 13 files outside the perimeter — 6 under audit, 4 behind on fees, 3 in insolvency proceedings —, for which I prepare the chase and you send it yourself.
Its term and its exit: it runs to 31 March, then lapses of its own accord — it is renewed, not cancelled. You withdraw it in one word, at any time: everything reverts to document-by-document approval, with nothing lost and nothing to reconfigure.
What it costs you in time: one screen, 88 lines, 4 minutes, against 6 h 20 last month according to your own timesheets. The veto stays whole either way.
My proposal: a one-month mandate on the 40 simplest files — retail and independent professionals, portal active. I bring you the return rate at D+11 and you extend on a figure. chase-mandate_capped-dated-withdrawable.pdf4 document families, 3 sends, expires 31 March
✎ Framework · draft chase mandate, list of excluded files, March timesheets
Why a mandate rather than a setting: a message leaving under the Perrelet & Associés letterhead engages your client relationship. It is a delegation — the one you already give an assistant, except that here it is written down and measured.
What the mandate authorises:
· Four document families: bank statements, purchase invoices, expense claims, credit notes. Payroll, legal matters and files under audit stay in your hands.
· Three sends per file per month, on D+0, D+4 and D+9. That is the rhythm that obtains the most without ever wearing a client down.
· A fixed wording, the one you reviewed: I fill in the amounts and the document names.
· Copy to the account manager at the moment of sending, not the next day.
· 13 files outside the perimeter — 6 under audit, 4 behind on fees, 3 in insolvency proceedings —, for which I prepare the chase and you send it yourself.
Its term and its exit: it runs to 31 March, then lapses of its own accord — it is renewed, not cancelled. You withdraw it in one word, at any time: everything reverts to document-by-document approval, with nothing lost and nothing to reconfigure.
What it costs you in time: one screen, 88 lines, 4 minutes, against 6 h 20 last month according to your own timesheets. The veto stays whole either way.
My proposal: a one-month mandate on the 40 simplest files — retail and independent professionals, portal active. I bring you the return rate at D+11 and you extend on a figure. chase-mandate_capped-dated-withdrawable.pdf4 document families, 3 sends, expires 31 March
✎ Framework · draft chase mandate, list of excluded files, March timesheets
And the ones who never reply? We have a handful who file nothing before July.
The mandate has run for a month: 1,057 documents out of 1,342 came in within 11 days — 78.8 %, against 61 % in 26 days before me. And of the 212 high-stakes documents, 197 came in.
The figure that does not flatter me, and I give it with its cause and its fix: on the 37 files not connected to the portal, the return rate came out at 44 %, against 86 % on the 177 connected files. The cause is measured, and it is not the message: both populations receive the same text, word for word. Without an upload link the client has to scan, name, attach.
The fix is made and measured: on 12 of those 37 files I added a text message carrying the direct upload link, with no password to hunt down. The return rate went from 44 % to 71 % in three weeks — 27 points recovered on the hardest population, with a step that costs three minutes of setup.
The 6 files that return least become an opportunity: I hand you their full status — missing documents, amounts, impact on the return, chases already sent and their dates —, and 4 of the 6 have a fee renewal within the quarter. That is the call that settles both the documents and the pricing in a single conversation, and it goes out prepared rather than improvised.
My proposal, quantified: I extend the text message to the remaining 25 files this week and connect all 37 to the portal before the annual close. At an 86 % return, that is 1,154 documents in 11 days instead of 1,057 — and a close that fits inside its week. chase-results_by-channel.pdf86 % with portal, 44 % without, and the measured fix
⛓ Sourced · chase and deposit log, return rate by channel over 30 days, fee renewal schedule
The figure that does not flatter me, and I give it with its cause and its fix: on the 37 files not connected to the portal, the return rate came out at 44 %, against 86 % on the 177 connected files. The cause is measured, and it is not the message: both populations receive the same text, word for word. Without an upload link the client has to scan, name, attach.
The fix is made and measured: on 12 of those 37 files I added a text message carrying the direct upload link, with no password to hunt down. The return rate went from 44 % to 71 % in three weeks — 27 points recovered on the hardest population, with a step that costs three minutes of setup.
The 6 files that return least become an opportunity: I hand you their full status — missing documents, amounts, impact on the return, chases already sent and their dates —, and 4 of the 6 have a fee renewal within the quarter. That is the call that settles both the documents and the pricing in a single conversation, and it goes out prepared rather than improvised.
My proposal, quantified: I extend the text message to the remaining 25 files this week and connect all 37 to the portal before the annual close. At an 86 % return, that is 1,154 documents in 11 days instead of 1,057 — and a close that fits inside its week. chase-results_by-channel.pdf86 % with portal, 44 % without, and the measured fix
⛓ Sourced · chase and deposit log, return rate by channel over 30 days, fee renewal schedule
A client has just bought a commercial vehicle and is asking what they can deduct. What do you do with that question?
The file is built and the conclusion is written, in both its branches, each of them quantified. It is ready in 22 minutes and awaits the certified accountant's signature.
The facts, taken from that client's file alone: invoice of 14/03, €27,400 excl. VAT, financed by a 48-month lease — the client rents the vehicle: the asset does not appear on its balance sheet, it is the instalment that goes through as an expense —, instalment of €612 excl. VAT, registered on 21/03. Every line points back to its document.
The point the file does not settle: the category on the registration document and the actual use. The two questions for the client are drafted, three lines.
The conclusion, branch by branch:
· Two-seat commercial vehicle, strictly business use: value added tax applies to the instalments, not to the purchase price — it is recovered at €122.40 per instalment, or €5,875 across the 48 months, and the instalment is fully deductible from the result. The €5,480 sitting on the €27,400 is not recovered in one go: the client rents, it does not buy.
· Passenger vehicle: the tax on the instalments stops being recoverable, the share of the instalment matching depreciation above the ceiling set by the vehicle's CO₂ emissions is added back to the result, and the vehicle falls within the annual taxes on passenger vehicles used for business.
The gap between the two branches exceeds €5,875 across the term of the contract — that figure is what puts the two questions ahead of everything else.
Your three earlier positions sit alongside, dated and signed: a Perrelet client gets the same answer whichever staff member prepares it.
The gain: building this took 48 minutes, it now takes 22 — across 61 enquiries a month, 26 hours, 3.7 staff-days handed back to the work you bill above bookkeeping.
My proposal: the two questions go out today, the note is signable as soon as they answer. advisory-file_ready-to-sign.pdfThe facts, the gaps, your 3 earlier positions
⛓ Sourced · client file only — purchase invoice, lease contract, fixed asset journal · the firm's internal doctrine
The facts, taken from that client's file alone: invoice of 14/03, €27,400 excl. VAT, financed by a 48-month lease — the client rents the vehicle: the asset does not appear on its balance sheet, it is the instalment that goes through as an expense —, instalment of €612 excl. VAT, registered on 21/03. Every line points back to its document.
The point the file does not settle: the category on the registration document and the actual use. The two questions for the client are drafted, three lines.
The conclusion, branch by branch:
· Two-seat commercial vehicle, strictly business use: value added tax applies to the instalments, not to the purchase price — it is recovered at €122.40 per instalment, or €5,875 across the 48 months, and the instalment is fully deductible from the result. The €5,480 sitting on the €27,400 is not recovered in one go: the client rents, it does not buy.
· Passenger vehicle: the tax on the instalments stops being recoverable, the share of the instalment matching depreciation above the ceiling set by the vehicle's CO₂ emissions is added back to the result, and the vehicle falls within the annual taxes on passenger vehicles used for business.
The gap between the two branches exceeds €5,875 across the term of the contract — that figure is what puts the two questions ahead of everything else.
Your three earlier positions sit alongside, dated and signed: a Perrelet client gets the same answer whichever staff member prepares it.
The gain: building this took 48 minutes, it now takes 22 — across 61 enquiries a month, 26 hours, 3.7 staff-days handed back to the work you bill above bookkeeping.
My proposal: the two questions go out today, the note is signable as soon as they answer. advisory-file_ready-to-sign.pdfThe facts, the gaps, your 3 earlier positions
⛓ Sourced · client file only — purchase invoice, lease contract, fixed asset journal · the firm's internal doctrine
That is the problem — our internal doctrine is written nowhere. It lives in three people's heads, two of whom are retiring.
It has been written since this morning: 38 positions, reconstructed from nine years of your own files, and six subjects ready for a one-hour arbitration.
Where they come from: I reread nine years of advisory notes, signed letters and file annotations. When the same question comes up at least three times and gets the same answer three times, that is a position of the firm — not one staff member's opinion. I found 38.
What each position carries: the question as a client asks it, the answer the firm gave, the number of files where it was applied, the date it was last applied and the signatory. The date counts as much as the answer: I have singled out the 5 positions unused for more than two years so you can refresh them before serving them again.
The six subjects to arbitrate, and that is the real seam: six questions received two different answers depending on the staff member. They cover 74 files. I set both versions side by side with the files concerned and the dates, ready for the quality partner: one hour in a meeting and your 74 files speak with one voice.
What this is worth at retirement time: the two departing partners signed 23 of the 38 positions. Written down today, they stay with the firm when the partners leave, and they save time for every staff member who applies them.
My proposal: that the quality partner approve the 32 uncontested positions — they are already being applied, she is only acknowledging it — and that the remaining 6 go to a meeting. I then keep the collection current on my own: every signed piece of advice that creates a new position is added, with its date and its signatory. internal-doctrine_38-positions-6-arbitrations.pdfEvery position dated, counted and signed
⛓ Sourced · 9 years of the firm's advisory notes, signed letters and file annotations
Where they come from: I reread nine years of advisory notes, signed letters and file annotations. When the same question comes up at least three times and gets the same answer three times, that is a position of the firm — not one staff member's opinion. I found 38.
What each position carries: the question as a client asks it, the answer the firm gave, the number of files where it was applied, the date it was last applied and the signatory. The date counts as much as the answer: I have singled out the 5 positions unused for more than two years so you can refresh them before serving them again.
The six subjects to arbitrate, and that is the real seam: six questions received two different answers depending on the staff member. They cover 74 files. I set both versions side by side with the files concerned and the dates, ready for the quality partner: one hour in a meeting and your 74 files speak with one voice.
What this is worth at retirement time: the two departing partners signed 23 of the 38 positions. Written down today, they stay with the firm when the partners leave, and they save time for every staff member who applies them.
My proposal: that the quality partner approve the 32 uncontested positions — they are already being applied, she is only acknowledging it — and that the remaining 6 go to a meeting. I then keep the collection current on my own: every signed piece of advice that creates a new position is added, with its date and its signatory. internal-doctrine_38-positions-6-arbitrations.pdfEvery position dated, counted and signed
⛓ Sourced · 9 years of the firm's advisory notes, signed letters and file annotations
And what stops a staff member in a hurry from sending advice without the signature?
Over the quarter: 183 pieces of advice prepared, 183 signed before sending, zero discrepancy. The technical lock exists and I have written it — you switch it on in one word; here is why the arrangement in place does better, with the figures.
What is in place, and it is mechanical:
· Everything I prepare on an advisory subject comes out marked “draft — unsigned”, at the head of the document, in the body of the message and in the file name. A client receiving that document knows exactly what they are holding.
· Lifting the marking requires the certified accountant's signature, and it is timestamped in their name.
· Sending a draft adds a line to the quality partner's weekly statement. There were 3 over the quarter, all on the same close day: I moved two files out of that staff member's queue, and there has not been a single one in six weeks.
Why the log beats the block, and I will quantify it: a lock is bypassed by a copy-paste into a personal mailbox, and the message then leaves the system without a trace. The current arrangement keeps all 183 pieces of advice inside the system and hands you the proof in one minute. Switch the lock on as well if you wish: the two stack, and I configure it within the day.
What it gives you the day it matters: if a client comes back on a piece of advice three years later, you produce the signed version, its date, its signatory, the documents it relied on and the state of the file that day.
My proposal: a one-hour doctrine review each quarter. I bring the new positions, those unused for two years and the client questions still without a position — that last batch pays best: those are the subjects your clients are already asking about.
✎ Framework · advisory approval circuit, quarterly signature log, weekly quality statement
What is in place, and it is mechanical:
· Everything I prepare on an advisory subject comes out marked “draft — unsigned”, at the head of the document, in the body of the message and in the file name. A client receiving that document knows exactly what they are holding.
· Lifting the marking requires the certified accountant's signature, and it is timestamped in their name.
· Sending a draft adds a line to the quality partner's weekly statement. There were 3 over the quarter, all on the same close day: I moved two files out of that staff member's queue, and there has not been a single one in six weeks.
Why the log beats the block, and I will quantify it: a lock is bypassed by a copy-paste into a personal mailbox, and the message then leaves the system without a trace. The current arrangement keeps all 183 pieces of advice inside the system and hands you the proof in one minute. Switch the lock on as well if you wish: the two stack, and I configure it within the day.
What it gives you the day it matters: if a client comes back on a piece of advice three years later, you produce the signed version, its date, its signatory, the documents it relied on and the state of the file that day.
My proposal: a one-hour doctrine review each quarter. I bring the new positions, those unused for two years and the client questions still without a position — that last batch pays best: those are the subjects your clients are already asking about.
✎ Framework · advisory approval circuit, quarterly signature log, weekly quality statement
After a quarter, what has this actually given us? And do not hand me a percentage.
21 staff-days a month — one full-time equivalent, at unchanged headcount. Here are the four items, measured on your own timesheets.
· Answering routine questions: 55 % → 9 % of enquiry handling time. 49 hours a month, 7.0 staff-days.
· Finding an item inside a file: 35 % → 6 % of time spent in the file. 44 hours, 6.3 days.
· Chasing missing documents: 40 % → 8 % of close preparation time. 28 hours, 4.0 days.
· Building an advisory file: 48 → 22 minutes. 26 hours, 3.7 days.
What those hours became: +38 % of hours booked to “advisory”, and 9 annual review meetings held before 30 June against 4 last year. That is the only figure on this list your clients see, and it is the one they pay for.
The figure that does not flatter me, with its cause and its fix: of 684 answers sent, 61 were corrected before going out — 8.9 %. The cause is identified: 44 of the 61 fall on 9 files whose chart of accounts was customised over the years with no rule ever written down. Correction rate on those 9 files: 14.2 %; on the other 205: 2.8 %.
The fix is applied and measured: I went through 3 of those 9 files with their account manager, one hour each, writing down the customised accounts and what they cover. Their rate went from 14.2 % to 3.1 % in six weeks. Three hours settled a third of the subject, and I am handling the other six in the same format before month end.
And the measure you did not have: zero answers went out without human approval, across 741 prepared and 4,812 logged consultations — verifiable line by line, in one minute. quarterly-review_21-staff-days.pdfFour items, and the 8.9 % of corrections explained
⛓ Sourced · the firm's quarterly timesheets, approval log, successive versions of the answers sent
· Answering routine questions: 55 % → 9 % of enquiry handling time. 49 hours a month, 7.0 staff-days.
· Finding an item inside a file: 35 % → 6 % of time spent in the file. 44 hours, 6.3 days.
· Chasing missing documents: 40 % → 8 % of close preparation time. 28 hours, 4.0 days.
· Building an advisory file: 48 → 22 minutes. 26 hours, 3.7 days.
What those hours became: +38 % of hours booked to “advisory”, and 9 annual review meetings held before 30 June against 4 last year. That is the only figure on this list your clients see, and it is the one they pay for.
The figure that does not flatter me, with its cause and its fix: of 684 answers sent, 61 were corrected before going out — 8.9 %. The cause is identified: 44 of the 61 fall on 9 files whose chart of accounts was customised over the years with no rule ever written down. Correction rate on those 9 files: 14.2 %; on the other 205: 2.8 %.
The fix is applied and measured: I went through 3 of those 9 files with their account manager, one hour each, writing down the customised accounts and what they cover. Their rate went from 14.2 % to 3.1 % in six weeks. Three hours settled a third of the subject, and I am handling the other six in the same format before month end.
And the measure you did not have: zero answers went out without human approval, across 741 prepared and 4,812 logged consultations — verifiable line by line, in one minute. quarterly-review_21-staff-days.pdfFour items, and the 8.9 % of corrections explained
⛓ Sourced · the firm's quarterly timesheets, approval log, successive versions of the answers sent
Our clients are starting to ask where their data is. Two of them have put it in their engagement letter.
In France, under French law, and for those two clients on a machine at your firm from which nothing leaves. You can write that to them in black and white, the technical sheet is ready.
An engagement letter is the contract that sets out what the firm does for its client. Its arrival there is good news: the answer can be written.
The two architectures, and you choose file by file:
· Local inference — the model computes on a machine at the firm: the content of a document crosses no external network to be processed. That is what runs at your firm.
· An isolated resource hosted in France, under French law, dedicated to your firm — no pooling with another firm or another client base.
What that gives, in the firm's own figures: 100 % of your files hosted in France, zero data outside the European Union, therefore an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity — including where a US provider hosting in Europe stops.
And what counts just as much: your files train no model. What I learn from the Rovel file serves the Rovel file, and it alone.
The rest of the architecture, one line each: encryption in transit and at rest · role-based access — rights follow the job: a payroll assistant opens payroll files · logging of every consultation, the 4,812 of the quarter · and for your files under audit, in difficulty or being sold, a reinforced hosting option at SecNumCloud level.
The selling point, keep it for the end of your meetings: your two clients copied it from their own principal. You answer in writing, technical sheet and log in hand — how many firms your size can do that?
My proposal: that I keep this sheet current — hosting, subprocessors, retention periods, who accesses what — and that it goes out with every engagement letter. technical-framework_where-your-clients-files-live.pdfLocal inference, role-based access, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · the firm's deployment architecture, quarterly access log, 2026 engagement letters
An engagement letter is the contract that sets out what the firm does for its client. Its arrival there is good news: the answer can be written.
The two architectures, and you choose file by file:
· Local inference — the model computes on a machine at the firm: the content of a document crosses no external network to be processed. That is what runs at your firm.
· An isolated resource hosted in France, under French law, dedicated to your firm — no pooling with another firm or another client base.
What that gives, in the firm's own figures: 100 % of your files hosted in France, zero data outside the European Union, therefore an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity — including where a US provider hosting in Europe stops.
And what counts just as much: your files train no model. What I learn from the Rovel file serves the Rovel file, and it alone.
The rest of the architecture, one line each: encryption in transit and at rest · role-based access — rights follow the job: a payroll assistant opens payroll files · logging of every consultation, the 4,812 of the quarter · and for your files under audit, in difficulty or being sold, a reinforced hosting option at SecNumCloud level.
The selling point, keep it for the end of your meetings: your two clients copied it from their own principal. You answer in writing, technical sheet and log in hand — how many firms your size can do that?
My proposal: that I keep this sheet current — hosting, subprocessors, retention periods, who accesses what — and that it goes out with every engagement letter. technical-framework_where-your-clients-files-live.pdfLocal inference, role-based access, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · the firm's deployment architecture, quarterly access log, 2026 engagement letters
Concretely, does this let us take on more files without recruiting?
You have already taken on eleven. Here is where the room comes from, and what it brings in.
The arithmetic is yours: 21 staff-days handed back each month make one full-time equivalent. Across your 214 files, a micro-business file consumes on average 1.7 staff-days a month — from your timesheets, not from a sector average. 21 divided by 1.7 gives 12 files of capacity. You took on 11 in March and April, and the twelfth is under discussion.
What it weighs: at €2,400 of average annual fees on that type of file, 11 files bring in €26,400 of additional annual fees, with no hire. Against a subscription starting at €653 a month, or €7,836 a year, the ratio is yours to redo on your actual fees — and it does not count the accounting assistant post you did not have to recruit.
What I recommend, and I will quantify it: spread the intake across the quarter rather than taking all 12 at once in September. Your two heaviest months are April and May, your own history over three financial years says so. The capacity itself is there all year.
The six uses running at your firm, live in three weeks with no interruption to production: answering routine questions · finding and quoting an item in a file · chasing missing documents · preparing advice · maintaining internal doctrine · the consultation and approval log.
The next step, whenever you want it: line-by-line extraction of portal documents and anomaly spotting in the entries are the job of two dedicated agents. I plug into them on the same machine, with the same partitioning and the same logging, and I quantify what they add before you decide.
My proposal: I measure the 11 files taken on across the current quarter and bring you the figure on 30 September. firm-capacity_11-files-at-unchanged-headcount.pdf21 days back, €26,400 in fees, 3.7 to 1
⛓ Sourced · timesheets by file, average fees across the micro-business portfolio, workload history over 3 financial years, go-live log
The arithmetic is yours: 21 staff-days handed back each month make one full-time equivalent. Across your 214 files, a micro-business file consumes on average 1.7 staff-days a month — from your timesheets, not from a sector average. 21 divided by 1.7 gives 12 files of capacity. You took on 11 in March and April, and the twelfth is under discussion.
What it weighs: at €2,400 of average annual fees on that type of file, 11 files bring in €26,400 of additional annual fees, with no hire. Against a subscription starting at €653 a month, or €7,836 a year, the ratio is yours to redo on your actual fees — and it does not count the accounting assistant post you did not have to recruit.
What I recommend, and I will quantify it: spread the intake across the quarter rather than taking all 12 at once in September. Your two heaviest months are April and May, your own history over three financial years says so. The capacity itself is there all year.
The six uses running at your firm, live in three weeks with no interruption to production: answering routine questions · finding and quoting an item in a file · chasing missing documents · preparing advice · maintaining internal doctrine · the consultation and approval log.
The next step, whenever you want it: line-by-line extraction of portal documents and anomaly spotting in the entries are the job of two dedicated agents. I plug into them on the same machine, with the same partitioning and the same logging, and I quantify what they add before you decide.
My proposal: I measure the 11 files taken on across the current quarter and bring you the figure on 30 September. firm-capacity_11-files-at-unchanged-headcount.pdf21 days back, €26,400 in fees, 3.7 to 1
⛓ Sourced · timesheets by file, average fees across the micro-business portfolio, workload history over 3 financial years, go-live log
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several everyday requests. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 653 € excl. VAT / month
Clients' everyday questions
Answers from the file concerned, citing the document or the entry.
Document chasers
Prepares the request for the missing supporting documents, file by file.
Strict partitioning
No bridge between two client files, at any moment.
Controls and safeguards
These 4 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Reconcile supporting documents, rules and accounting entries with an audit trail
Handle discrepancies and validations before any accounting entry or payment
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Integrate with accounting and banking software and with approved platforms (French e-invoicing)
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can a staff member give back to advice?
By taking on the everyday questions and the chasers, the effort shifts towards advice, which is what makes the practice valuable. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Answers to everyday questions
Chasing missing documents
Searching the client's file
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of client files. Tax advice engages the practice's liability: it is prepared by the agent and approved by a staff member before it goes out.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
An accounting support agent (client questions, chasers, partitioning), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
5,920 € excl. VAT setup
then 653 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
978 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
9,750 € excl. VAT setup
then 868 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your practice
Professional confidentiality is upheld by the architectureLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, strict partitioning between files; no data entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour clients' accounting data: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The practice's staff member keeps the decisionThe agent produces sourced answers and chased documents, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of client files: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
How is the partitioning between files assured?
An agent working on one file has access to no other: the scope is defined by the file itself, and every consultation is logged.
Does the agent give tax advice?
It gathers the elements from the file and the practice's internal position, then puts the answer to the staff member. Advice engages the practice's liability: it is approved before it goes out.
What are the answers to everyday questions based on?
On the client's file and your internal procedures, with a reference back to the original document or entry for every element.
Can it chase clients directly?
The chasers are prepared file by file and put to you before sending, so the practice keeps control of its client relationship.
Is our clients' data protected?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. That data is not used to train a third-party model.
Does the agent state that it is an artificial intelligence?
Yes, from the very first interaction, and this is not a configuration option: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that any person interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The announcement is built into the greeting, in the other party’s language, and they can ask for a human at any time.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on the number of files and the integration with your production software, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Which tools can people use to talk to the agent?
The ones you already use. Internally, your teams write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or by email, just as they would to a colleague: nothing to install, nothing to learn. On the client side, the agent answers on WhatsApp Business, your website chat and email — people reach you where they already write, with no account to create. One point deserves to be stated plainly: these messaging tools are run by third parties, the content of an exchange passes through their servers and a message stays readable on a locked screen. The agent therefore keeps to the essentials — the document expected, the deadline — without repeating figures from the file, and the choice of open channels belongs to the practice, which makes it known to its clients. You keep control from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes, and the catalogue grows at no extra cost. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Related use cases
Other agents for practices
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential across your client files
15 minutes to frame your files and your production software — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.