FlowSmith · sample deliverable

Invoice extraction with a human review queue

Five invoices, including an EU-formatted one, an ambiguous double-total and a bad OCR scan. The pipeline only auto-approves when its weakest field clears 0.80; everything else goes to a human. Accuracy below is measured against hand-labelled truth, not self-graded.

5invoices processed
3auto-approved
2routed to review
100.0%field accuracy (25/25)
Why the review queue matters: a pipeline without one silently writes confidently-wrong numbers into the books. The review step is a third of the build cost and the reason clients trust the output.

Per-invoice result

filevendorinvoice #dateccytotalconfidencestatusreason
inv_1001_clean.txtNorthstar Studio LLCINV-2026-10012026-10-28USD$1,627.500.90auto-approved—
inv_1002_eu.txtAlpen Data GmbHRE-2026-04422026-10-30EUR€2,023.000.90auto-approved—
inv_1003_ambiguous.txtAcme Supply CoINV-2026-11882026-11-02USD$880.000.50→ review queuecurrency inferred from symbol, not an ISO code; conflicting totals on the document (840.00, 880.00) -> human review
inv_1004_ocr.txtNovak C0ntentINV-2026-20102026-11-03USD$1,050.000.55→ review queuecurrency inferred from symbol, not an ISO code; vendor name contains OCR artifacts (digits)
inv_1005_clean2.txtRuiz LegalRL-88422026-11-04USD$750.000.85auto-approved—

What would be written downstream

approved.csv  ->  3 row(s) to accounting
review_queue.csv -> 2 row(s) to a human (Slack / sheet / email)

Production build (what the client actually gets, $2,200)

Text extraction (or OCR) → LLM returns a fixed JSON schema → confidence per field → review queue → approved rows written to their accounting system. Includes a 20-document accuracy baseline, a hard monthly API cost cap, error alerts and a 10-minute handover video. This demo uses rules instead of an LLM so it runs offline; the UX and review routing are the same.

← back to FlowSmith