We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Business offer — Accountancy practiceThe AI agent for chartered accountants: automate the entry, free up the advice
Entry, matching and checking documents take up a considerable share of staff time — without being the value the client actually pays for: advice. Your AI agent absorbs that repetitive work. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — financial data stays under control. The chartered accountant keeps the decision.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Proposed entries and matching ready — for approval.
⛓ Sourced · your production software + the file's documents
I am preparing an alert note for the client, for your approval.
✎ Action · note ready for review — the member of staff approves
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
In an accountancy practice, a Blue Lemon Agent agent automates the repetitive tasks — entry, matching, anomaly checks, supplier invoice processing — and answers clients' everyday questions. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, financial data is never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Production time is redirected towards higher-value advice. Live within a few weeks.
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.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Three options, one agent
An accounting agent (entry, anomalies, summaries), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
The uses of AI in an accountancy practice
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, then the neighbouring agents that can be added to it. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you, and the chartered accountant keeps the decision.
The practice's memory
Instantly find a piece of information in the files, the doctrine and the internal procedures.
Client relations
Answering recurring questions: deadlines, documents to provide, status of a file.
Sales agent (meeting notes, follow-ups, CRM)
CRM integration, meeting reports.
Available View the agent page →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.
Payroll & employment
Preparing and checking payroll data and social security returns — an agent built to measure for your payroll team.
Payroll & social declaration control agent from 552 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Reading and extracting supporting documents
OCR + completeness check on files.
Reading and extracting supporting documents from 535 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →AI accounting agent
Bookkeeping entry is repetitive, time-consuming and seen as adding no value — yet it has to be exact.
Accounting agent (summaries, anomalies) from 406 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →AI agent for invoice processing
Entering, matching, getting approval, paying: processing supplier invoices is a repetitive, high-volume process that invites mistakes.
Automated invoice processing agent (P2P) from 506 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Sales steering
Steering calls for up-to-date figures and differences seen early.
Sales steering agent (KPIs, alerts) from 244 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →AI executive assistant
A managing director opens the inbox before everyone else and closes it after everyone else.
Executive assistant agent from 337 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Client accounting support
A practice spends a great deal of time on two things: answering its clients' everyday questions and asking for the documents that are missing.
Client accounting support agent (practice) from 338 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
See the agent at work
6 everyday 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.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· Grandet SAS — November's VAT is due for filing in 4 days and the return is not approved.
· Solni Distribution — the suspense account has doubled in three weeks: €6,200 unallocated, against €2,900 on 15/07.
· Verel & Fils — no entries since 12/07. Either the documents have stopped coming, or they are going somewhere else.
· Halbran SARL — a supplier changed bank details between two payments, and the notification email comes from a domain one character away from the supplier's. portfolio-watch_4-alerts.csv12 files watched · 4 alerts
⛓ Source · 12 client files, entries and journals
Three things line up: the account differs from the one used for the last six payments; the sender's domain differs by one character from the supplier's; and the request lands three days before a €18,400 payment falls due.
I block nothing and I do not alert the bank — that is not my role, and a false alarm has a cost. What I do: the payment is flagged to the person handling the file, with the six bank details compared and the email header analysed.
A call to the supplier on their usual number — not the one in the email — settles it in two minutes. bank-details-analysis_Halbran.pdf6 accounts compared · header analysed
✎ Support · documented pattern — the check is the practice's
With a follow-up: no action after 48 hours, a reminder goes to the assistant; after 72 hours, to the responsible accountant. The thresholds are yours.
And a weekly summary for the partner: alerts open, alerts handled, alerts left unanswered. A state of the files, not a ranking of people — the distinction is not cosmetic, it decides whether the tool is used or worked around. alert-routing_proposal.csv4 alerts · recipients · thresholds
✎ Action · routing proposed — allocation and thresholds are yours
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Four points to settle:
· suspense account — €2,340 unallocated since March, 6 documents;
· an expense of €1,800 invoiced on 28 December for a service delivered in January — which year it belongs to is yours to decide;
· a customer cleared by a credit note with no supporting document on file;
· the cash account shows a credit balance on 14 November, which is impossible.
No entry has been posted: these are proposals. review_Grandet-SAS_2026.csvbalances justified · 4 points open missing-documents.pdf6 items from the suspense account
⛓ Source · trial balance, ledger and documents on file
Two explanations both hold — a back-dated entry, or takings never recorded — and nothing on file settles it. I am not deciding: the correcting entry depends on which one is true.
✎ Support · anomaly documented — the call is the accountant's
Fictional simulation — not a client result
One gap flagged: €412 between the VAT recorded as collected and the VAT computed on the declared turnover. It comes from three export invoices entered at 20% instead of being zero-rated.
The return is neither approved nor filed. VAT-return_Grandet-SAS_november.pdfpre-filled · 1 gap to settle
⛓ Source · VAT accounts, period ledger extract
The regenerated return shows no gap.
The entries are waiting for your approval, and the filing for your signature.
One observation: the same check run across the other 11 clients in the portfolio brings out 2 comparable gaps, also on export invoices. Shall I prepare them?
And if you decide so, this check can run on its own at every month-end close, across the whole portfolio: you would only see the clients where a gap appears. No entry would be posted and no return filed — the check flags, it does not do the bookkeeping. You switch it on, you switch it off. VAT-return_Grandet-SAS_november_v2.pdfgap cleared · 3 entries to approve
✎ Action · entries proposed — the practice approves and files
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A certificate engages the chartered accountant's liability and carries their signature; it assumes work that has not been done here, and it falls outside the current engagement letter.
What I am preparing: turnover excluding VAT by year, an extract of the sales ledger, the trial balance at the date requested, and the practice's certificate template, pre-filled. certificate-evidence_Grandet-SAS.pdfturnover by year · extracts · template
✎ Support · evidence assembled — the certificate is the accountant's act
What I can do to speed this up: list the checks the certificate assumes, and tick the ones the year-end review already covers. Two remain. checks-outstanding.csv9 checks · 7 already covered
✎ Support · list of checks — the signature stays a professional act
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I see: same supplier, same amount of €4,180, same issue date. One through the e-invoicing flow, one by e-mail with the scanned paper — and two different document numbers, the supplier's and its platform's.
This kind of case had not yet been taken into account: your bookkeeping rules say which document supports which entry, and they do not say which of the two is the document when one fact produces two. So I have posted nothing — and both are matched, with their channel and their time of arrival.
Three ways forward. Post the first to arrive and set the second aside: the supplier account is right, and the duplicate stays in the flow where it will reappear at the next reconciliation. Post the one from the e-invoicing flow and set the scan aside: the audit trail is the shortest, and the scan carries a hand-annotated goods received note that the flow does not. Post the one from the flow and attach the scan as a supporting document on the same entry: one entry, two documents, and the goods received note stays attached — at the cost of an attachment to make every time.
I recommend the third. Your year-end review supports every balance with its document, and two documents for one fact are worth more than a choice between them: it is exactly the annotated goods received note that was missing on the customer settled by a credit note with no supporting document.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: the e-invoicing flow prevails and the scan is only attached where it carries a handwritten note or an enclosure absent from the flow.
Shall I remember it for the next cases? Across the 12 files in the portfolio, 214 invoices this quarter arrived twice by two channels, including 61 in the Grandet file alone. If you approve the rule, I will handle them that way, and the weekly summary will give the count file by file.
⛓ Source · invoice of 11/08, e-invoicing flow and e-mail, bookkeeping rules, 214 double arrivals across 12 files
The rule, in one sentence: an invoice arriving by two channels gives one entry, supported by the document from the e-invoicing flow; the scan is attached as a supporting document; each document carries its channel and time of arrival; and neither document number is deleted.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: two documents on one entry, with no explanation, look like a duplicate someone forgot to purge. With the channel written down, the second document reads for what it is: the annotated goods received note — and that is the one an inspection will ask for.
What it changes this morning: the Grandet entry is proposed on the flow document, the scan is attached with the note “e-mail, 11/08 at 7:52”, both document numbers appear, and nothing is committed — the entry waits for your review like the others.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your bookkeeping rules under its own name, with its date, the supervising accountant who approved it and the invoice that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and these invoices go back to a flag to the associate.
✎ Rule approved · bookkeeping rules, entry “invoice arriving by two channels”, approved on 11/08 by the supervising accountant
What I looked at: the 214 invoices that arrived twice this quarter, the supplier of each, both channels of arrival, and the matching time spent by the associate.
What comes out of it: the 214 come from 23 suppliers, and 9 of them cover 168 of the 214. Those nine already issue through the e-invoicing flow and go on sending the scan by e-mail — a habit that outlived their own switchover.
What it costs today: each double arrival takes 3 minutes to match — 10 h 42 over the quarter — and 4 invoices were posted twice before being corrected, two of them in a file that paid the duplicate before the discrepancy showed.
What I propose, and the letter goes out on the company's letterhead, not the firm's: a standard letter to the 9 suppliers concerned asking them to stop sending by e-mail, the e-invoice prevailing. I prepare it, file by file, with the list of duplicate invoices; the company sends it.
What it is worth: 168 of the 214 double arrivals disappear, that is 8 h 24 of matching per quarter and the risk of a double payment with them. The remaining 46 come from 14 suppliers and are handled one by one.
The decision is yours, and first of all your clients': writing to a supplier commits the company in its commercial relationship, and I only write the draft.
✎ Proposal · 214 double arrivals, 23 suppliers of which 9 for 168 invoices, 3 minutes each to match or 10 h 42, 4 double postings — the letter belongs to the client companies
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Two movements explain most of it: gross margin is down 3.1 points on a single customer, and external charges are up 14% following the change of logistics provider in September.
Figures as the books stand: the four open review points are not included.
And a line I did not have last year, since the rule you approved on invoices arriving by two channels: 61 double arrivals in this file alone, 61 single entries with the scan attached and its channel — no double postings this quarter, and the annotated goods received note is in the review file. interim-accounts_Grandet-SAS_30-11.pdfP&L · balance sheet · variances
⛓ Source · entries to 30 November, prior year for comparison
I can hand over to your Forecasting and planning agent, which projects from history and from assumptions you set. Shall I pass the accounts on?
✎ Support · limit reached — handover offered
Each assumption is stated separately and can be changed: the logistics provider stays, the main customer's contract is renewed, no new investment.
The second is the decisive one: without that customer, the projected result turns negative in month 7. The sensitivity is quantified. forecast_Grandet-SAS_12-months.csv3 assumptions · sensitivity quantified
⛓ Source · 3 financial years · assumptions listed one by one
Nothing is commented on or recommended — two agents, a single point of supervision, and it is the chartered accountant who presents it to the client.
✎ Support · two agents under one supervision — the practice decides
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Why AI matters to practices — and why they hesitate
Clients increasingly want less plain accounts production and more advice. But available time is mechanically reduced by entry and review — and the data involved is the most sensitive there is.
! The issue
The practice is caught between clients who want steering and optimisation, and an ever-growing production workload (entry, matching, checking, invoices). Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting turnover, margins, pay and bank accounts to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to a practice if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the accountancy professional: the time saved on production is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the chartered accountant, but to give them back thinking time.
Confidentiality of financial data: sovereignty & compliance
A practice handles its clients' most sensitive data. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, file by file.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine in the practice: no document leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of financial data to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per practice
No pooling of financial data: an environment strictly dedicated to your practice.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no entry 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.
How much time can a practice win back?
By automating document reading and anomaly detection, a practice can aim for a reduction by half in production time on standardised files — reinvested in billable advice.
Four guarantees that matter to a practice
Related resources
Your questions, our answers
Can AI really automate bookkeeping entry?
Is my customers' data protected?
Does AI help with mandatory electronic invoicing?
How do the practice and its clients talk to the agent?
Do we have to change accounting software?
Do you have to be a large practice to equip yourself?
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
Other professions in figures and advice
Let us estimate the potential in your practice
30 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.