● Business offer — Supplier invoice processing
The AI agent for supplier invoices: capture, match, get approval
Entering, matching, getting approval, paying: processing supplier invoices is a repetitive, high-volume process that invites mistakes. With electronic invoicing arriving, it is also a shift every company has to absorb. Your AI agent takes the whole flow end to end — hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource. Approving the payment, however, stays human.
Hosted in France
Financial data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in two to four weeks
Supplier invoice assistant · hosted in France
Here is a batch of 38 supplier invoices received this week. Match them against the purchase orders and flag what is blocking before approval.
38 invoices read (32 structured e-invoices, 6 PDFs via OCR). 34 matched automatically against their purchase order and goods receipt. 4 discrepancies: a duplicate (FA-4517 already processed), an amount €240 above the purchase order, VAT at 20% instead of 10% on a service, and a missing goods receipt.
The 34 compliant invoices are ready for approval; the 4 discrepancies are held.
⛓ Sourced · receiving platform + purchase orders from the ERP
The 34 compliant invoices are ready for approval; the 4 discrepancies are held.
⛓ Sourced · receiving platform + purchase orders from the ERP
The €240 discrepancy — what exactly is it?
Invoice FA-4602, supplier Dumont SAS: the purchase order was for 120 units at €18; the invoice shows 130 at the same price. That is a delivery above the order, to be confirmed with the purchasing department before payment.
I am preparing the invoice for your approval circuit — the decision to pay stays with a person.
✎ Action · invoice routed for approval — you decide
I am preparing the invoice for your approval circuit — the decision to pay stays with a person.
✎ Action · invoice routed for approval — you decide
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Data hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
A person approves the paymentThe agent prepares, never pays alone
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent invoice processing agent (purchase-to-pay) captures supplier invoices across every channel, extracts the data, matches them against purchase orders and goods receipts, detects discrepancies and routes them for approval before processing into the ERP. It speeds up the purchase-to-pay cycle and prepares for mandatory electronic invoicing. Hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity: financial and supplier data stays under control. Approving the payment stays human. Live in two to four weeks.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
uses included in the P2P core
0
decision taken without human approval
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
The context
Why invoice processing is becoming a priority project
The purchase-to-pay cycle is repetitive, high-volume and error-prone. With electronic invoicing becoming mandatory, every company has to be able to receive and process invoices in a structured format — a shift to absorb without weighing the teams down.
! The issue
Purchasing, accounting and finance departments face a continuous flow of invoices to enter, match, get approved and pay. Every invoice takes time (entry, matching, internal chasing) and every error — a duplicate, an amount discrepancy, VAT, an IBAN — is expensive. Yet automating that flow with a consumer tool would mean entrusting financial data and supplier bank details to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest on this flow if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, automatic three-way matching, discrepancy detection, routing for approval: the agent takes on all the preparation work. But it never decides to pay — approval and the financial commitment stay human, according to your thresholds and approval circuits. The aim is not to replace your teams, but to give them time back and make the cycle more reliable.
The decisive point
Sensitive financial and supplier data: sovereignty & compliance
Invoices contain amounts, bank details and sensitive supplier information. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, invoice after invoice.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the company: no invoice leaves the network, nothing passes through a foreign cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — your data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity for financial data: our architecture stays out of the American hyperscalers' reach, even when hosted in Europe.
One isolated resource per client
No pooling of financial data: an environment strictly dedicated to your company.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
An agent strictly in support; no payment approved automatically; 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.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- 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 the most demanding environments, SecNumCloud hardening can be quoted, subject to the matching acceptance testing. Health-data hosting is not offered on this scope: a supplier invoice has no reason to carry health data, and the agent does not process it as such.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
4 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 companyNeroli Systèmes — IT consulting and engineering firm (French NAF code 62.02)
- Sector
- IT consulting and engineering: time and materials, fixed price and managed services
- Headcount
- 78 staff, including 64 consultants; one sole accountant and one administrative officer
- Market served
- IT departments of French industrial SMEs and mid-caps
- Supplier volume
- 214 invoices a month, 96 active suppliers, 23 of them time-and-materials subcontractors
- Tools in place
- A dedicated accounts mailbox, an approved platform, accounting production software, a document base, a supplier register
- Who decides
- The finance and administration manager releases invoices for payment; the accountant handles the exceptions
- Room for improvement
- 27 invoices a month carry a discrepancy handled the following month, and 19 early-payment discounts were lost over twelve months, worth €1,940
Neroli Systèmes rebills to its clients the subcontracting, licences and hosting it buys: every supplier invoice must carry its project code before payment, or the project margin is lost. The accountant works alone, and discrepancies pile up until the year-end close. The agent is connected to the accounts mailbox, the supplier drop-box and the approved platform; it prepares, and the finance and administration manager signs.
This company, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real client.
Supplier invoice assistant · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on your invoices.
· An invoice arrives with an IBAN different from the one this supplier has used since 2021. The covering email announces a change of bank. I have not applied it.
· An €8,400 invoice arrived twice, eleven days apart, with two different numbers and the same amount, the same month of time and materials and the same timesheet.
· Three invoices fall due in 5 days with no approval. Two of them carry a 2% early-payment discount if settled before Friday.
· One hosting invoice carries €412 of French VAT, where the previous 34 invoices from the same supplier carried none. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 IBAN blocked
⛓ Source · invoice inflow, supplier history, purchase orders, due-date schedule
· An invoice arrives with an IBAN different from the one this supplier has used since 2021. The covering email announces a change of bank. I have not applied it.
· An €8,400 invoice arrived twice, eleven days apart, with two different numbers and the same amount, the same month of time and materials and the same timesheet.
· Three invoices fall due in 5 days with no approval. Two of them carry a 2% early-payment discount if settled before Friday.
· One hosting invoice carries €412 of French VAT, where the previous 34 invoices from the same supplier carried none. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 IBAN blocked
⛓ Source · invoice inflow, supplier history, purchase orders, due-date schedule
The IBAN change — what do you do?
Nothing, and it is the one point where I stop entirely.
What I record: this time-and-materials subcontractor has invoiced on the same IBAN since 2021, 47 invoices. This one carries another, and the covering email says the bank has changed.
Why I do not apply it: that is exactly the shape a bank-detail fraud takes. An email announcing a new IBAN proves nothing — a sending address can be forged, and a mailbox can be compromised.
What I also notice, and it deserves your attention: the email comes from an address very close to the supplier's, one letter apart. I give you both side by side rather than concluding — it may be a second legitimate domain.
What I propose: a call to the supplier, on the number in your contract and not the one in the email, with the invoice held on the old IBAN until then.
What is left to you is one call and one word from you. The file is already built: the two addresses side by side, the contract number to dial, the invoice held on the old IBAN. You settle it on evidence instead of opening an investigation, and the new IBAN only takes effect on your approval — which is precisely what stops the transfer nobody can take back. iban-change_blocked.pdf2 addresses · 1 letter apart · no change applied
⛓ Source · 47 invoices since 2021, email of 07/08, supplier contract
What I record: this time-and-materials subcontractor has invoiced on the same IBAN since 2021, 47 invoices. This one carries another, and the covering email says the bank has changed.
Why I do not apply it: that is exactly the shape a bank-detail fraud takes. An email announcing a new IBAN proves nothing — a sending address can be forged, and a mailbox can be compromised.
What I also notice, and it deserves your attention: the email comes from an address very close to the supplier's, one letter apart. I give you both side by side rather than concluding — it may be a second legitimate domain.
What I propose: a call to the supplier, on the number in your contract and not the one in the email, with the invoice held on the old IBAN until then.
What is left to you is one call and one word from you. The file is already built: the two addresses side by side, the contract number to dial, the invoice held on the old IBAN. You settle it on evidence instead of opening an investigation, and the new IBAN only takes effect on your approval — which is precisely what stops the transfer nobody can take back. iban-change_blocked.pdf2 addresses · 1 letter apart · no change applied
⛓ Source · 47 invoices since 2021, email of 07/08, supplier contract
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: the invoices coming in, your purchase orders, your goods receipts, each supplier's history, and the due dates.
Routing follows the risk: an IBAN change goes to accounts and to the purchasing lead, immediately, both together — the only case where I tell two people to be sure one reacts; a duplicate to accounts; the due dates to whoever holds the approval, with the discount at stake; the VAT gap to accounts.
With a chase: 24 h on the IBAN and on due dates under 5 days, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by supplier and by type of gap, never by approver.
What this arrangement gives you, in figures. I read the channels you have opened to me — the accounts mailbox, the supplier drop-box, the e-invoicing platform — and I have checked that no invoice escapes me: matching your ledger against the invoices received, I found 4 suppliers still writing to a personal mailbox; the one-line message that moves them to the accounts address is drafted, it is waiting on you to send it. Payment, approval and any change of bank details are signed — which is exactly what makes them impossible to obtain with a mere email. I do everything that comes before the signature: across the month's 214 invoices, 187 arrive ready to pay and 27 carry the exact name of their gap. Ten seconds per invoice is what is left to you.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Routing follows the risk: an IBAN change goes to accounts and to the purchasing lead, immediately, both together — the only case where I tell two people to be sure one reacts; a duplicate to accounts; the due dates to whoever holds the approval, with the discount at stake; the VAT gap to accounts.
With a chase: 24 h on the IBAN and on due dates under 5 days, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by supplier and by type of gap, never by approver.
What this arrangement gives you, in figures. I read the channels you have opened to me — the accounts mailbox, the supplier drop-box, the e-invoicing platform — and I have checked that no invoice escapes me: matching your ledger against the invoices received, I found 4 suppliers still writing to a personal mailbox; the one-line message that moves them to the accounts address is drafted, it is waiting on you to send it. Payment, approval and any change of bank details are signed — which is exactly what makes them impossible to obtain with a mere email. I do everything that comes before the signature: across the month's 214 invoices, 187 arrive ready to pay and 27 carry the exact name of their gap. Ten seconds per invoice is what is left to you.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Our invoices arrive everywhere: by email, dropped off at reception, and soon through the platform. How do you keep track?
Multi-channel capture: all three inlets land in the same queue, and every invoice carries its source channel and its timestamp.
The three channels, and what each actually brings:
· Email — a dedicated mailbox, 134 invoices this month, attachments extracted and the message body kept where it carries an instruction.
· Drop-off — paper scanned at reception or filed to your portal, 52 invoices, put through character recognition.
· The approved e-invoicing platform, 28 invoices, received in structured format.
What multi-channel capture solves and three separate queues do not: the €8,400 duplicate arrived once by email and once by drop-off, eleven days apart. Two queues, two people, two payments. One queue, an immediate match.
What capture carries for every invoice: the channel, the arrival timestamp, the actual sender, and the source document exactly as it arrived — never a reprocessed version: it is the original that stands up in an audit.
The figure that does not flatter me: of the 52 dropped-off invoices, 6 came in with an unreadable field — 11.5 %, against 0 of the 28 received in structured format. The explanation is mechanical: a 150-dpi scan on a coloured background does not yield a reliable invoice number. What I do with it: I raise those six for assisted entry with the area in question enlarged, and I never guess a digit — a guessed number matches the wrong purchase order, which costs more than the typing.
⛓ Source · 134 emails, 52 drop-offs, 28 structured invoices, 6 unreadable fields out of 52 against 0 out of 28
The three channels, and what each actually brings:
· Email — a dedicated mailbox, 134 invoices this month, attachments extracted and the message body kept where it carries an instruction.
· Drop-off — paper scanned at reception or filed to your portal, 52 invoices, put through character recognition.
· The approved e-invoicing platform, 28 invoices, received in structured format.
What multi-channel capture solves and three separate queues do not: the €8,400 duplicate arrived once by email and once by drop-off, eleven days apart. Two queues, two people, two payments. One queue, an immediate match.
What capture carries for every invoice: the channel, the arrival timestamp, the actual sender, and the source document exactly as it arrived — never a reprocessed version: it is the original that stands up in an audit.
The figure that does not flatter me: of the 52 dropped-off invoices, 6 came in with an unreadable field — 11.5 %, against 0 of the 28 received in structured format. The explanation is mechanical: a 150-dpi scan on a coloured background does not yield a reliable invoice number. What I do with it: I raise those six for assisted entry with the area in question enlarged, and I never guess a digit — a guessed number matches the wrong purchase order, which costs more than the typing.
⛓ Source · 134 emails, 52 drop-offs, 28 structured invoices, 6 unreadable fields out of 52 against 0 out of 28
And the e-invoicing obligation — are we ready or not?
Structured reception already works, and what I hand back is the state of your suppliers rather than an assertion about your compliance.
What e-invoicing changes for me, and it is a gain, not a constraint: an invoice in structured format arrives with its data already readable — supplier, registration number, order references, lines, amounts, VAT rates. There is nothing to recognise, so nothing to misrecognise. Across your 28 structured invoices this month: 0 doubtful fields, against 6 out of 52 paper drop-offs.
The state of your 96 suppliers, as I measure it: 28 already issue in structured format; 41 have a valid registration number and a declared channel but still bill in PDF; 19 have no usable registration number in your reference data, and that is the only thing blocking structured reception. I hand you the 19 by name, with the missing field and what already exists on your side to fill it.
What I prepare, and it is done once: three-way matching works identically whatever the format, because it bears on the data and not on the layout. A structured invoice therefore enters the existing chain directly — 187 of 214 match today, and that rate does not move with the channel.
What I put in your hands before you even speak to your adviser: the measured state of your flows — what already comes in structured, what can tomorrow, and the 19 lines missing to get there, supplier by supplier. Your compliance meeting is prepared in one reading instead of a stocktake: the obligation's timetable and scope are read in the applicable text and confirmed with your adviser, and you arrive with the figures rather than the questions.
⛓ Source · 28 suppliers in structured format, 41 ready, 19 without a usable identifier, 187 matches out of 214
What e-invoicing changes for me, and it is a gain, not a constraint: an invoice in structured format arrives with its data already readable — supplier, registration number, order references, lines, amounts, VAT rates. There is nothing to recognise, so nothing to misrecognise. Across your 28 structured invoices this month: 0 doubtful fields, against 6 out of 52 paper drop-offs.
The state of your 96 suppliers, as I measure it: 28 already issue in structured format; 41 have a valid registration number and a declared channel but still bill in PDF; 19 have no usable registration number in your reference data, and that is the only thing blocking structured reception. I hand you the 19 by name, with the missing field and what already exists on your side to fill it.
What I prepare, and it is done once: three-way matching works identically whatever the format, because it bears on the data and not on the layout. A structured invoice therefore enters the existing chain directly — 187 of 214 match today, and that rate does not move with the channel.
What I put in your hands before you even speak to your adviser: the measured state of your flows — what already comes in structured, what can tomorrow, and the 19 lines missing to get there, supplier by supplier. Your compliance meeting is prepared in one reading instead of a stocktake: the obligation's timetable and scope are read in the applicable text and confirmed with your adviser, and you arrive with the figures rather than the questions.
⛓ Source · 28 suppliers in structured format, 41 ready, 19 without a usable identifier, 187 matches out of 214
How do you match an invoice?
On three points, and I tell you which one blocks.
The match: the invoice, the purchase order, and the goods receipt. When all three agree on supplier, references, quantities and prices, the invoice is ready to approve.
Across the month's 214 invoices: 187 agree on all three and are ready; 27 have a gap.
What I do with the 27, and this is where it counts: I do not put them in an undifferentiated "exceptions" queue. I name the gap: 11 are time-and-materials invoices whose billed days exceed the approved timesheet — the invoice is legible, it is the timesheet that is unsigned; 8 carry a licence seat count different from the subscription contract; 5 are hosting consumption with no possible purchase order, variable by nature; 3 arrive with no project code, so they cannot be rebilled as they stand.
The difference is practical: the first 11 are settled by having the engagement manager sign the timesheet, which takes thirty seconds. The next 8 require opening the subscription contract to count the seats actually open. Those are not the same actions or the same people.
And the 187 that match, I make signable in one pass: each arrives with its purchase order, its goods receipt and the four checkpoints in plain sight, grouped by supplier and by approver. The approval stays with the approver, and it is the approval that counts as reading: it is precisely the best-matching invoices that would get paid with nobody looking. What I save you is the checking time, not the decision time — 187 approvals are given in about fifteen minutes, screen by screen, against a day spent opening the documents one by one. 214-invoices_27-gaps.pdf187 matching · 27 gaps, each named
⛓ Source · 214 invoices this month, purchase orders, goods receipts
The match: the invoice, the purchase order, and the goods receipt. When all three agree on supplier, references, quantities and prices, the invoice is ready to approve.
Across the month's 214 invoices: 187 agree on all three and are ready; 27 have a gap.
What I do with the 27, and this is where it counts: I do not put them in an undifferentiated "exceptions" queue. I name the gap: 11 are time-and-materials invoices whose billed days exceed the approved timesheet — the invoice is legible, it is the timesheet that is unsigned; 8 carry a licence seat count different from the subscription contract; 5 are hosting consumption with no possible purchase order, variable by nature; 3 arrive with no project code, so they cannot be rebilled as they stand.
The difference is practical: the first 11 are settled by having the engagement manager sign the timesheet, which takes thirty seconds. The next 8 require opening the subscription contract to count the seats actually open. Those are not the same actions or the same people.
And the 187 that match, I make signable in one pass: each arrives with its purchase order, its goods receipt and the four checkpoints in plain sight, grouped by supplier and by approver. The approval stays with the approver, and it is the approval that counts as reading: it is precisely the best-matching invoices that would get paid with nobody looking. What I save you is the checking time, not the decision time — 187 approvals are given in about fifteen minutes, screen by screen, against a day spent opening the documents one by one. 214-invoices_27-gaps.pdf187 matching · 27 gaps, each named
⛓ Source · 214 invoices this month, purchase orders, goods receipts
The €8,400 duplicate — would it have gone through?
Probably, and that is what makes this check pay for itself.
Why it would have gone through: the two invoices carry two different numbers and arrived eleven days apart. A check on the invoice number sees nothing, and a sole accountant handling 214 invoices a month does not connect the 12th with the 23rd.
What identifies them: same subcontractor, same month of time and materials and same consultant, same timesheet, same net amount to the euro, same detail lines.
What I do not conclude: that there is fraud. The most common cause is mundane — an invoice reissued after a chase, without the first being cancelled. The supplier is after nothing: they believe their first invoice was lost.
What I propose: a message to the supplier asking which of the two to cancel, with the second held meanwhile.
Over twelve months: I found 9 comparable cases, 6 of them settled and paid twice, for €31,200 in total. Four have since been recovered, two have not. duplicate_8400-eur.pdf2 invoices · 9 cases in 12 months · €31,200
⛓ Source · 2 invoices of 12/07 and 23/07, 12-month history
Why it would have gone through: the two invoices carry two different numbers and arrived eleven days apart. A check on the invoice number sees nothing, and a sole accountant handling 214 invoices a month does not connect the 12th with the 23rd.
What identifies them: same subcontractor, same month of time and materials and same consultant, same timesheet, same net amount to the euro, same detail lines.
What I do not conclude: that there is fraud. The most common cause is mundane — an invoice reissued after a chase, without the first being cancelled. The supplier is after nothing: they believe their first invoice was lost.
What I propose: a message to the supplier asking which of the two to cancel, with the second held meanwhile.
Over twelve months: I found 9 comparable cases, 6 of them settled and paid twice, for €31,200 in total. Four have since been recovered, two have not. duplicate_8400-eur.pdf2 invoices · 9 cases in 12 months · €31,200
⛓ Source · 2 invoices of 12/07 and 23/07, 12-month history
The three invoices due in 5 days — what am I risking?
Nothing serious, and €168 — which is the real reason to deal with them this week.
The three: due 13/08, no approval. Two carry a 2% early-payment discount, before Friday the 12th.
What that is worth: €8,400 and €6,000 of base, so €168 of discount lost if the approvals are not given before Friday.
What it is worth over the year: I looked. Across 12 months, 31 invoices carried a discount and 19 lost it — not by decision, but because the approval arrived after the date. €1,940 in total.
What I have already done so the date is holdable: the three invoices are matched, with no gap, and the approvals are drafted in your name, with the discount and the deadline at the top of the screen. Three signatures, under a minute, €168 kept. The approval stays your gesture — a 2% discount does not justify paying an invoice nobody looked at, and that is precisely the trade-off a hurried tool would make on your behalf.
What I propose: flag the discount when the invoice arrives, not five days before. That is when the approval costs least to obtain. discounts_1940-eur-over-12-months.pdf31 invoices · 19 discounts lost
⛓ Source · 3 invoices due 13/08, discount terms, 12-month history
The three: due 13/08, no approval. Two carry a 2% early-payment discount, before Friday the 12th.
What that is worth: €8,400 and €6,000 of base, so €168 of discount lost if the approvals are not given before Friday.
What it is worth over the year: I looked. Across 12 months, 31 invoices carried a discount and 19 lost it — not by decision, but because the approval arrived after the date. €1,940 in total.
What I have already done so the date is holdable: the three invoices are matched, with no gap, and the approvals are drafted in your name, with the discount and the deadline at the top of the screen. Three signatures, under a minute, €168 kept. The approval stays your gesture — a 2% discount does not justify paying an invoice nobody looked at, and that is precisely the trade-off a hurried tool would make on your behalf.
What I propose: flag the discount when the invoice arrives, not five days before. That is when the approval costs least to obtain. discounts_1940-eur-over-12-months.pdf31 invoices · 19 discounts lost
⛓ Source · 3 invoices due 13/08, discount terms, 12-month history
And the €412 of VAT on the hosting?
I record the gap, I do not say who is right.
What I see: this hosting provider has sent you 34 invoices, none of which carried French VAT. This one does: €2,060 net, €412 of VAT.
The three possible explanations, and they are not equivalent: the supplier made a mistake; something changed in the nature or the place of the service; or the previous 34 should have carried it.
The third deserves asking, however unwelcome: the previous 34 total €39,500 net, which is €7,900 at the same rate as this one — and you would carry it in an audit.
What I have prepared so the question can be settled, and it is the bulk of the work: the 35 invoices with the exact wording of each, the three where the wording departs from the others — that is probably where the answer sits —, the gap invoice by invoice, and both full figures: €412 if only this one is wrong, €7,900 if it is the previous 34. The file fits on one page.
Qualifying the rate is signed: it belongs to your accountant or your adviser, because it commits the company before the tax authority. With that page in front of them it takes ten minutes instead of a month of digging — and I send the question the moment you tell me to whom. vat-gap_35-invoices.pdf34 at 10% · 1 at 20% · 3 differing descriptions
✎ Support · a tax question — the agent does not settle a rate
What I see: this hosting provider has sent you 34 invoices, none of which carried French VAT. This one does: €2,060 net, €412 of VAT.
The three possible explanations, and they are not equivalent: the supplier made a mistake; something changed in the nature or the place of the service; or the previous 34 should have carried it.
The third deserves asking, however unwelcome: the previous 34 total €39,500 net, which is €7,900 at the same rate as this one — and you would carry it in an audit.
What I have prepared so the question can be settled, and it is the bulk of the work: the 35 invoices with the exact wording of each, the three where the wording departs from the others — that is probably where the answer sits —, the gap invoice by invoice, and both full figures: €412 if only this one is wrong, €7,900 if it is the previous 34. The file fits on one page.
Qualifying the rate is signed: it belongs to your accountant or your adviser, because it commits the company before the tax authority. With that page in front of them it takes ten minutes instead of a month of digging — and I send the question the moment you tell me to whom. vat-gap_35-invoices.pdf34 at 10% · 1 at 20% · 3 differing descriptions
✎ Support · a tax question — the agent does not settle a rate
Concretely, what is left for me to do?
Approve, and only approve — but with everything in front of you.
What you receive for each invoice: the invoice, the purchase order and the receipt, or the contract and the timesheet, alongside, the three-point matching result, the due date, and the discount if there is one.
What you do not receive: a queue of 214 invoices to work through. The 187 matching ones arrive grouped by supplier, and the 27 with gaps arrive one at a time, each with its gap named.
What was measured, and I give it to you even though it is not flattering: over a trial month, approval time went from 14 minutes to 4 minutes per invoice with a gap — but it stayed at 40 seconds per matching invoice, exactly as before. The tool saves no time on what was already fast.
Where the real gain is: the 27 gaps are handled the week they arrive instead of the following month, which changes the supplier relationship far more than the minutes saved. approval_measured-times.pdf14 → 4 min on gaps · unchanged on the rest
⛓ Source · trial month, 214 invoices, measured times
What you receive for each invoice: the invoice, the purchase order and the receipt, or the contract and the timesheet, alongside, the three-point matching result, the due date, and the discount if there is one.
What you do not receive: a queue of 214 invoices to work through. The 187 matching ones arrive grouped by supplier, and the 27 with gaps arrive one at a time, each with its gap named.
What was measured, and I give it to you even though it is not flattering: over a trial month, approval time went from 14 minutes to 4 minutes per invoice with a gap — but it stayed at 40 seconds per matching invoice, exactly as before. The tool saves no time on what was already fast.
Where the real gain is: the 27 gaps are handled the week they arrive instead of the following month, which changes the supplier relationship far more than the minutes saved. approval_measured-times.pdf14 → 4 min on gaps · unchanged on the rest
⛓ Source · trial month, 214 invoices, measured times
What do you keep out of all this?
Enough to retrace a payment, and nothing that grades anyone.
What is kept: the invoice, the documents matched and the matching result, the gaps flagged and what became of them, the blocks and their release, the date.
What is not kept: no statistics per approver, no individual approval time, no ranking of suppliers.
Why the last line: a ranking of "problem" suppliers would be built on the gaps I flag, and most of those gaps are not the supplier's fault — an unsigned timesheet, an unupdated subscription contract, a reissued invoice. Such a ranking would say more about your processes than about them.
What the monthly summary contains: the types of gap, discounts taken and lost, and blocks released with their reason. Three indicators about your flows, none about your teams. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
What is kept: the invoice, the documents matched and the matching result, the gaps flagged and what became of them, the blocks and their release, the date.
What is not kept: no statistics per approver, no individual approval time, no ranking of suppliers.
Why the last line: a ranking of "problem" suppliers would be built on the gaps I flag, and most of those gaps are not the supplier's fault — an unsigned timesheet, an unupdated subscription contract, a reissued invoice. Such a ranking would say more about your processes than about them.
What the monthly summary contains: the types of gap, discounts taken and lost, and blocks released with their reason. Three indicators about your flows, none about your teams. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
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
The facets of the purchase-to-pay cycle that get automated
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All of them work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 6 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 981 € excl. VAT / month
Multichannel capture
Receiving invoices from every channel: email, upload, approved e-invoicing platform.
Data extraction
OCR on PDFs and direct use of the structured data in electronic invoices, with no re-keying.
Three-way matching
Automatic matching of the invoice, the purchase order and the goods receipt.
Discrepancy detection
Amounts, duplicates, VAT, payment terms: the anomalies are spotted before approval.
Routing for approval
The invoice is routed according to your approval circuits and thresholds — the decision to pay stays human.
Electronic invoicing
Receiving and processing inbound invoices in structured format. Receiving has been mandatory for every company since 1 September 2026; issuing belongs to the dedicated agent — source <a href="https://www.impots.gouv.fr/professionnel/je-decouvre-la-facturation-electronique" target="_blank" rel="noopener">impots.gouv.fr</a>, accessed 7 September 2026.
Controls and safeguards
These 3 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.
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.
Entry & bookkeeping
Entries, matching and checking in the broader sense: the accounting agent completes the invoice cycle.
Accounting agent (summaries, anomalies) from 781 € excl. VAT / month Accounting agent →Debt recovery
The other side of the cycle: chasing unpaid customer invoices in multichannel sequences.
Debt collection agent (multichannel sequences) from 587 € excl. VAT / month Debt recovery →Supplier memory
Instantly find a contract, a term or a supplier's history in your files.
Document agent (FAQ, knowledge base) from 678 € excl. VAT / month Knowledge base →
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 on the purchase-to-pay cycle?
By automating capture and matching, the agent sharply cuts the cost per invoice and shortens the cycle — which can also make it possible to capture early payment discounts. The real gains depend on your volume and on how complex your circuits are.
Processing time per invoice (entry + matching)
Detecting errors and duplicates
Time to payment
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
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
An invoice processing agent, installed and operated for you
A purchase-to-pay agent (capture, matching, discrepancy detection, routing), adapted to your ERP and your approval circuits. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
13,115 € excl. VAT setup
then 981 € 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
1,706 € 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
17,790 € excl. VAT setup
then 1,197 € 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 the purchase-to-pay cycle
Financial data never leavesLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no invoice entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawFinancial data: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
A person keeps the decision to payThe agent prepares and routes; no payment and no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityMultichannel capture: every change to the service is logged, in line with the requirements of the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent pay the invoices?
No. It prepares the case and routes it to the approver your workflow designates; the payment instruction belongs to your systems and to the people you authorise. It automates the preparation work, never the financial commitment.
Can it change a supplier's bank details?
No, and that is a design lock rather than a setting. Any difference between the bank details carried by the invoice and those in your master data puts the case on hold and triggers an out-of-band check, using a contact detail you already hold. An email or an attachment never lifts that hold.
How does this differ from the accounting agent?
This one owns the supplier case and the purchase-to-pay matching, up to preparing the coding and the export. The accounting agent covers entries and broader accounting controls. The two complement each other: you can start with one and extend to the other.
How does this differ from the electronic invoicing agent?
This one handles the invoices you <strong>receive</strong>. The electronic invoicing agent covers issuing your own invoices, the recipient directory and e-reporting. Two distinct agents, two distinct scopes.
How does this differ from the document processing (OCR) agent?
That one reads a document and stops at the validated extraction of its fields, whatever the document type. This one takes over afterwards: it resolves the supplier, matches the invoice against the contract, the purchase order and the receipt, names the discrepancy and assembles the approval case. Three-way matching and the approval route belong to this agent, under its own identifier <strong>agent-de-traitement-automatise-de-factures-p2p</strong>. The two stack: the extraction core can be reused, the purchase-to-pay rules stay here.
Does a VAT discrepancy mean the rate is wrong?
No. The agent reports an inconsistency — a rate that departs from the supplier's history, a base that does not recompute, a missing statement — and assembles the figures. Qualifying the tax treatment is for your accountant or adviser: it commits the company before the tax authority.
Are invoices without a purchase order rejected?
That depends on the policy you set. They can be matched against a contract, a subscription or a service entry, or routed to an exception queue. Tolerances and routes are administered outside the conversation and versioned: nobody changes them by talking to the agent.
Are construction invoices covered?
Yes where the configuration, the documents and the required connections have been tested on your scope: cumulative progress claims, retention, subcontracting and co-contracting. That configuration is scoped in the quote; it is not assumed.
Is Chorus Pro connected?
Only if the connection has actually been configured and tested in your environment. As of today no Chorus Pro connector ships with the agent as standard: it is quoted after a feasibility study.
Which ERP and accounting systems are compatible?
Compatibility depends on the available interface, the rights granted, the version in service and the acceptance testing — it is verified environment by environment. No brand is guaranteed in advance, and no connection is announced until it has been tested on your side.
How is the gain measured?
Through a pilot on your own scope, comparing before and after: volumes, time per invoice class, exceptions opened, rework, duplicates avoided and deadlines met. The assumptions stay visible and editable; no generic automation percentage is promised.
Does the data stay in France?
The answer depends on the architecture chosen and on the subprocessors listed in the quote, and it is verified there line by line. The target architecture is local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; any mention of isolation, encryption or absence of transfer is conditional on the matching quote and acceptance testing.
How long must received invoices be kept?
Accounting records are kept for 10 years from the close of the financial year (article L123-22 of the French Commercial Code) and documents supporting tax positions for 6 years (article L102 B of the French Tax Procedures Book) — <a href="https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/vosdroits/F10029" target="_blank" rel="noopener">service-public.gouv.fr, F10029</a>, verified 1 July 2024. The retention period and purge policy are set during scoping, with your adviser.
How long does it take to deploy the agent?
Two to four weeks depending on the connections to establish, after a free audit that identifies the most profitable scope, then a design, integration and testing phase before go-live.
Related use cases
Other agents in the financial cycle
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential on your invoice flow
15 minutes to identify the gain on your purchase-to-pay cycle — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.