AI accounting agent: automating entry and checking

I record a gap between the entry and the contract, and I have computed both outcomes.
What the entry says: a €2,300 charge, posted in full to this year, at the invoice date.
What the contract says, article 3: "the service runs from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027". Six months, three of them in the following year.
What I have written, awaiting your approval: the adjusting entry on a time-apportioned basis — €1,150 as a prepaid expense, €1,150 kept in this year — with the day-by-day workings that ground it. It is written; it is not posted.
And the one question it leaves open, I put to you plainly: apportionment assumes a service consumed evenly across the six months. If most of it is delivered at the start, the right figure is not €1,150 — and it is the contract, not the arithmetic, that says so.
What I provide: the entry, the contract, article 3 highlighted, and the dates. Your accountant decides in two minutes with that in front of them, and the entry goes through as it stands or with the figure they correct.
And one useful point: I looked at previous years. Four comparable contracts were treated the same way — meaning either this is your consistent practice, or the gap repeats. charge-2300_contract-art-3.pdf6 months straddling · 4 comparable cases
⛓ Source · entry of 12/10, contract of 28/09 art. 3, 4 comparable contracts

Same logic: I give you the criterion you actually apply, and the proposal that follows from it.
What I record: an item acquired in January for €3,800, recorded as an expense, with no depreciation schedule.
What I looked for: how you treat comparable items. Across 2024 and 2025, 11 items between €2,000 and €6,000 were capitalised, and 3 expensed. All three expensed carry the same wording on the invoice: "replacement equipment".
So the criterion that really separates the two groups is not the amount — it is on 3 invoices out of 3 on one side and on none of the 11 on the other. This one does not carry the wording: applied to it, your own criterion puts it with the 11.
What I propose, written and ready: capitalise it, with a depreciation schedule over five years, the life used on 9 of the 11 comparable items. Sign it and it runs from January.
What a threshold will never say: whether an item is depreciable turns on its use, not its price. If this one replaces existing equipment, tell me: I put it back to expense, with the wording, and the practice stays consistent.
What I provide: the invoice, the 14 earlier treatments, and the criterion that separates them. asset_14-treatments.pdf11 capitalised · 3 expensed · 1 criterion
✎ Support · the company's practice recorded — the decision stays with the accountant

Two hours, and I can tell you which of the 412 lines will take those two hours.
What I did: reconciled automatically what reconciles without ambiguity — same amount, same date within three days, matching description.
The result: 371 of 412 lines have an obvious counterpart. I propose them reconciled, and a glance is enough.
The remaining 41 split into four: 17 are grouped payments — one transfer settling several invoices; 12 are gaps of a few cents, bank charges or rounding; 8 have no counterpart in the ledger — the entry was never posted; 4 have a double counterpart, and that is the only group that worries me.
The 4: two ledger entries for a single bank movement. Either an entry was posted twice, or two separate invoices were settled together and allocated wrongly.
What I ran over the 371 before handing them back: three checks that catch the false friends — amount to the euro, date gap under three days, and uniqueness of the counterpart, meaning no entry can be reconciled against two movements. All 371 pass all three.
And the approval stays yours, precisely because these are the ones that get approved unlooked-at: a false reconciliation hides a gap instead of showing it, and a person has to have seen it. One click for the 371, two hours for the 41 — and I have already told you which. 412-lines_41-to-handle.pdf371 obvious · 41 in 4 families
⛓ Source · 3 statements, 412 lines, general ledger

That money moved without an entry, and the eight are not equivalent.
What I found for each: the bank description and what it allows to be identified.
· 5 are recurring direct debits whose entry was not posted this month — the supplier is identifiable from the description, and previous months carry the same line.
· 2 are customer receipts with no invoice found. Either the invoice was not issued, or it is elsewhere.
· 1 is a €1,240 debit whose description matches no known third party. No supplier of that name in your records, no invoice of that amount.
The last is the only one I raise separately. I do not say it is fraud — the description may denote a payment intermediary, or a supplier recorded under another name. I say that nothing in what you have opened to me explains it.
What I propose: the eight with their exact descriptions, and for the five recurring ones, the previous months' entry to copy. 8-lines_no-entry.pdf5 recurring · 2 receipts · 1 isolated
⛓ Source · 8 bank lines, descriptions, direct debit history

Two things: anomaly detection run across the whole financial year, and the summaries and statements ready to review.
Anomaly detection, across the year's 14,200 entries: 63 anomalies, sorted by what makes them detectable rather than by assumed severity.
· 19 probable duplicates — same supplier, same amount, same month, different document numbers. 11 are certain duplicates (same invoice number), 8 need a look: a supplier can genuinely bill the same amount twice in a month.
· 17 VAT rates inconsistent with the nature of the service as the document describes it. Twelve concern the same supplier, which moves the question from your data entry to their invoicing.
· 14 outlier amounts against twelve months of the same account — threshold computed on your own dispersion, not on a general rule: beyond three standard deviations of the account concerned.
· 13 entries with no document attached, 3 of them already known from the suspense account.
The figure that does not flatter me: of the 63 anomalies raised, 22 turned out to be justified on examination — 35 % false alarms. The explanation comes down to a single cause: 18 of the 22 came from the outlier threshold applied to accounts with very few movements, where three entries are enough to distort everything. What I did with it: anomaly detection no longer applies the amount test to an account with fewer than 12 entries a year; there it compares the document to the description. New measurement on the same year: 47 anomalies, 9 justified, 19 %.
The summaries and statements, ready to review: the aged trial balance by overdue bracket, the fixed asset statement with depreciation computed and January's asset finally depreciated, the suspense account statement down from 47 lines to 8, the prepaid expenses summary including the €2,300 straddling service, and a statement of open items listing what remains with the number of days left before year-end. Every line of every statement links back to the entries that make it up — a statement you cannot open is a statement people copy.
⛓ Source · 14,200 entries for the year, 63 anomalies then 47 after fixing the threshold, 5 statements

Seven points, and I give them with the time each takes.
What must be cleared or decided: the suspense account (47 entries), three third-party accounts abnormally in credit, the treatment of the €2,300 charge, January's asset, the 41 bank lines, two VAT accounts that do not clear, and a 2023 provision never released.
The last is the one that gets forgotten: a provision made in 2023 for a dispute, and the dispute has been settled since March. I saw it because the settlement agreement is on file.
The time estimated: about eleven hours in total, of which six on the suspense account if it is left to the last moment — and two if the 39 proposed postings are dealt with now.
What is missing before I can name the date the accounts will be ready, and how to get it: three things are not in what you have opened to me — the physical stocktake, the stock valuation, and your accountant's list of requests. I have asked for them: the stocktake and its valuation from the operations manager, with the method used last year; and I have pulled up the list your accountant sent last year — 17 items, 12 of which are already on file. Open those three to me and I give you a date, not an estimate.
What I provide: the list, the order in which to work through it, and what depends on a third party — three of the seven points are waiting on an outside answer. 7-points_before-year-end.pdf7 points · 11 h · 3 depend on a third party
⛓ Source · trial balance, settlement agreement, VAT accounts

Enough to justify an entry, and nothing that grades whoever keyed it.
What is kept: the gap flagged, the document and line that ground it, the posting proposed, the date, and what became of it — posted as proposed, amended, or dropped.
What is not kept: no statistics per person keying, no error rate per person, no appraisal of the quality of a set of accounts.
Why the last line: a tool grading "accounting quality" would produce an indicator nobody can interpret, and that somebody would eventually show to a third party. A 47-line suspense account in July is normal in some companies and abnormal in others, and no figure says which.
What the monthly summary contains: the accounts that are growing, missing documents by type, late reconciliations, and closing deadlines. Four indicators about the flows, none about people. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company