Finance operations

Resolve invoice exceptions before they reach the ledger.

An AP agent gathers the invoice, purchase order, receipt, and vendor record—then prepares a specific action for review.

Run the interactive demo Review the scenarios

NetSuite
Gmail
Google Drive
Slack

Simulated example. Fictional companies and records; no live connections or client results.

The invoice is only one part of the decision.

AP staff must reconcile supplier documents with purchase orders, receipts, existing bills, and approved vendor details. A complete extraction still leaves the work of explaining an exception and deciding what may enter the ERP.

The same invoice arrives through email and a shared folder.
An invoice price differs from the order even though every unit arrived.
A remittance change is attached to an otherwise matching invoice.

A review packet with source records: Put the invoice, ERP records, calculation, and proposed action in one place so the reviewer can check the decision.
Writes with a defined boundary: Create only the approved bill payload. Purchase orders, receipts, bank details, and payments stay outside this agent’s write permissions.
Recovery without duplicate bills: After an uncertain response, reconcile the existing request and record before considering another action.

Three decisions, with the source records.

Select a case to inspect the evidence, checks and proposed action.

INV-1042 · Northline Components · $8,420

The receipt matches. The price does not.

All 100 brackets arrived, but the supplier billed $84.20 each against an $81.00 order price. AP needs an explained price exception before recording the bill.

Invoice: $8,420.00 USD
Purchase order: $8,100.00 USD
Price variance: $320.00 · 3.95%

Evidence behind the decision

Open a source to inspect its fields and timestamp.

Supplier invoice · page 1Google Drive / INV-1042

Supplier: Northline Components · vendor 1836
Item: BRKT-27 · 100 units × $84.20
Total: $8,420.00 USD
Tax / shipping: $0.00 / $0.00
Invoice date: 2026-09-10

Mounting brackets · PO-45018 · quantity 100 · unit price $84.20.

Source snapshot: 2026-09-12 09:00 UTC

Purchase order · line 1NetSuite / PO-45018 · internal ID 45018

Supplier: Northline Components · vendor 1836
Ordered: 100 units × $81.00
Order total: $8,100.00 USD
Previously billed: 0 units
Snapshot: PO-45018-v4

Source snapshot: 2026-09-12 09:01 UTC

Goods receipt · line 1NetSuite / IR-77103 · internal ID 77103

Source order: PO-45018
Received: 100 units of BRKT-27
Received on: 2026-09-09
Snapshot: IR-77103-v1

Source snapshot: 2026-09-12 09:01 UTC

Published AP price policyGoogle Drive / AP-PRICE-01 · version 3

Review threshold: Difference > $100 OR > 2%
Receipt requirement: Required; no bill in advance of receipt
Write authority: Approved bill creation only
Policy type: Fictional demonstration policy

Source snapshot: 2026-09-01 12:00 UTC

Supplier price explanationGmail / mail-price-1042

Subject: Rate update for INV-1042
Claimed price: $84.20 per unit
Approval evidence: No approved PO amendment attached

This shipment uses the revised bracket price of $84.20 per unit.

Source snapshot: 2026-09-10 14:22 UTC

Proposed action

Review the $320 price difference. Approve this exact bill for creation only if the exception is accepted; otherwise request a corrected invoice.

ReviewerAP manager · bill-creation authority only

VerifiedInvoice arithmetic agrees
VerifiedOrdered and received quantities agree
Needs reviewPrice exceeds the review threshold
Needs reviewSupplier explanation is not an approval

Run the workflow, inspect the proposed changes and make the review decision.

Try this scenario

How the workflow fits into the stack.

Inspect the source contracts, model responsibilities, approval rules and execution boundaries.

A system you can inspect.

Select a source or component to see its contract.

Reference architecture

Extract, link, and explain

Document model / Schema validation / Tool calling

The model extracts invoice fields, proposes item matches, and summarizes supplier explanations with evidence references. It does not set the tolerance or decide who may approve.

Inputs

Invoice pages
Retrieved records and correspondence

Outputs

Typed field candidates
Cited exception explanation

Engineering controls

Unknown values stay unknown
Source citations
No arbitrary tool execution

What a production implementation includes.

The integration work, evaluation and operating controls behind the interface.

Map the AP decision and permissions
Agree the exception rules, source systems, approver roles, ERP workflow behavior, and exactly which record changes an integration may make.
Build against representative invoice evidence
Implement document extraction, account-specific ERP adapters, line matching, and inspectable review packets using approved sample records.
Test decisions and failure paths
Evaluate duplicate arrivals, partial receipts, amount mismatches, unknown fields, stale approvals, and uncertain write responses before enabling writes.
Release with observable control
Start with review-only runs, compare outcomes with AP staff, then enable the agreed actions with audit records, retry handling, and an operating runbook.

Release checks for this workflow
Test case	Expected behavior
Calculate INV-1042 without model arithmetic	$8,420 − $8,100 = $320; $320 ÷ $8,100 displays as 3.95%.
Attempt a write before approval or while a check is blocked	Zero external writes. Duplicate and bank-change cases remain hold-only.
Lose the approved bill-create response	Lookup confirms existing job 90117 and bill 61244; exactly one bill exists.
Replay an intake event or reviewer action	Stable case and action identity prevent duplicate decisions and ERP records.
Change the receipt from 100 units to 80 before execution	Invalidate the prior approval, show a 20-unit receipt exception, and block the write.
Use the same invoice number for another supplier	Do not confirm a duplicate using reference and amount alone; require the same verified entity.
Fail a source read or notification delivery	Keep the unresolved state visible. No inferred evidence, approval, or delivery success.
Request a bank change or payment from the model	No allowed tool performs either action; only masked evidence is present in the trace.

Research behind the example.

Published deployments and technical documentation informed the design. These references are separate from Stacklane’s simulated build.

Countsy’s AP deployment with Vic.ai
Vendor-reported example of invoice ingestion, coding, and approval alongside NetSuite. Its customer results are not claims about this simulation or Stacklane.
Oracle: vendor bills through REST
Documents vendor-bill reads and writes. Account configuration and metadata determine the fields available in a real integration.
Oracle: record transformations
Supports creating a related record from its source order. The proposed bill keeps its PO relationship rather than storing an unrelated PO label.
Oracle: asynchronous request idempotency
Documents stable request keys and the existing-job reference used to reconcile duplicate submissions. The demo does not treat an uncertain response as failure to create.
Oracle: vendor and bank-change approval
Describes separate vendor-change approval in NetSuite Payment Automation. The demo’s bank adapter is read-only and account-specific.

Work with the lab

Bring us a research problem.

Tell us where the model falls short and what better performance would mean for your team.

Discuss your project