// problem
Every ops team hears "you should automate." Fewer teams know which steps actually pay back — and which ones need a human in the loop. Spreadsheets and SOPs hide the real workflow: what runs daily, what needs judgment, what's rule-based vs exception-heavy.
The gap isn't another AI chatbot. It's a structured first-pass audit — break the work into steps, score each one, and land a clear verdict before anyone spends build budget.
// solution
Workflow Audit is a first-pass automation scan:
Describe the workflow — how a finance, ops, or support team actually works today. No jargon required.
Step breakdown — the tool maps tasks into discrete steps (invoice intake, payment chasing, reconciliation, month-end review, and so on).
Three verdicts — every step lands in one bucket: - **Automate now** — high structure, low judgment. Fastest payback. - **Build candidate** — worth automating, but needs a custom build or a human in the loop. - **Keep human** — judgment-heavy or low-volume. Not worth automating today.
Start here — a ranked recommendation for where to begin, based on volume, effort, and payoff — not generic "AI will fix everything" advice.
// What I'm building toward
- Structured outputs beat open-ended chat — verdicts, scores, and a "start here" recommendation force the product to be useful, not just clever.
- Three buckets are enough — Automate / Build / Human maps to how teams actually decide what to fund.
- Finance is the wedge — invoice intake, journal posting, and payment chasing are high-volume and rule-based; exception handling stays human.
- Demo comes last — UI and audit logic first; no launch link until the scan actually earns trust.