Skip to content

Integrations, MCP & workflow automationCapability

Invoice and Bank Reconciliation Where AI Only Drafts

I build invoice and bank reconciliation workflows: AI extracts fields and drafts matches; people decide. AI does not post entries or move money.

For
Small business finance and operations teams
Checked

Sounds familiar?

Tick what applies to you

The situation Integrations, MCP & workflow automation
Invoices and bank transactions reach you through different routes, and matching them takes repeated manual checks.

Tick the lines that describe your case.

Describe my task

How I solve it

What I build

I build a review workspace for invoice drafts and proposed bank matches. The bank input is read-only, through supported access or an approved export. AI extracts fields and flags uncertainty; defined comparison rules propose matches using the available amount, currency, reference and date. A person checks the source and approves or rejects the proposal. Neither an AI answer nor a high confidence score becomes a posting or a payment.

The process

How it works

6 steps. Scope and a fixed price are agreed before the first one.

  1. Agree the invoice sources, read-only bank input, fields to extract and decisions reserved for the reviewer.

  2. Define a typed draft contract that distinguishes observed fields from missing, ambiguous or unreadable ones.

  3. Import source documents and transactions with stable references. Detect repeated imports rather than creating duplicate review items.

  4. Propose matches under agreed rules, keeping the supporting fields visible. Unmatched items and conflicting candidates stay open.

  5. Let a person correct the draft and accept, reject or split the proposed match. Record the decision separately from the original suggestion.

  6. Export only accepted records in the agreed format. Test corrections, duplicates, partial payments, credits and failed imports with synthetic fixtures.

Handover

What you get

  • Invoice drafts with uncertain fields marked and the source available for review.
  • Proposed bank matches and a queue for unresolved items.
  • A record of what AI suggested and what a person actually accepted.
  • An agreed export format and a runbook for corrections or failed imports.

Built with

  • An invoice input adapter
  • a document parser
  • a typed AI extraction contract
  • a read-only bank feed or export importer
  • deterministic comparison rules
  • a review workspace
  • an approved-record export
  • an audit log

Proof

Done before, with dates and numbers

Capability Work I do; the proof below is from related projects.

Before → after

The intended change is from retyping and manually searching transactions to a queue of evidence-backed proposals that a person resolves. My related billing pilot supports read-only checks with writes disabled by default. The related intake work supports extraction behind human review. I do not claim that those parts already form a delivered invoice-and-bank reconciliation system or that they produced measured savings.

What you can look at

Proposed acceptance artefact: a synthetic invoice and bank export showing a clear match, an ambiguous match, a partial payment and a repeated import. The review record would show the original proposal, the human correction and the accepted export. This is an acceptance plan, not an existing reconciliation demo.

This is a proposed capability. Related backing covers a read-only billing pilot and human-reviewed extraction from incoming requests. It does not establish a delivered invoice-and-bank reconciliation system. Authorship of the related bank integration is not confirmed and is not claimed here.

Price and timeline

What it costs and how it runs

I scope this as a Custom Engineering Project and quote in USD in writing. The invoice formats, available bank access, comparison rules and accepted export determine the timeline. The first milestone is read-only input and a draft that your reviewer can check against its source.

QuoteFixed before work starts

Price
Custom Engineering Project, scoped and quoted in USD in writing after checking the invoice sources, bank access and review process. Discussing the task is free.
Timeline
Scope and timeline agreed in writing. I start with read-only input and a reviewable draft; an accepted export is a separate milestone.
First step
Describe the task. I reply within one working day, free, and tell you which option fits — or that you can fix it yourself.
Describe a task like this

A note from Daniilbefore you decide

When you don’t need this

If your accounting system already imports invoices and matches transactions reliably, use that workflow. A small batch may be easier to review manually. I would consider a custom review layer when unclear documents or unmatched transactions keep falling outside the existing rules.

— Daniil

Questions

What people ask about this

Can the AI post an entry or initiate a payment?

No. The model prepares drafts and match proposals. The bank connector is read-only, and a person approves any reconciliation record or export.

What if an invoice is hard to read?

The draft marks missing or ambiguous fields and keeps the source beside them. A guessed value cannot silently become an accepted field.

What happens when a payment covers several invoices?

I include that scenario in the agreed matching rules and review queue. The system proposes a split with its evidence; a person accepts or corrects it.

Does this replace my invoicing or accounting system?

The scope is intake, comparison and review. Invoice issuance and accounting postings stay in your existing authorised workflow.

More like this

All situations
Daniil Maximkin

Hi, I’m Daniil.

I work with you from defining the problem to implementation and handover. You talk to the person who does the work. I work in English and Russian.

My story My work

Have a task like this?

Describe your task

The first answer is free, within one working day. Or write directly: next@taskfordaniel.com