Supporting, not judging
Useful applications in an accounting firm share one thing: they do the work before judgment. Reading documents, copying data, flagging deviations, preparing a draft. Judgment itself — is this correct, acceptable, sufficient — is and remains human work, and a workflow hiding that is one you do not want.
In practice, every step below ends in a proposal someone sees, not processing someone discovers afterward.
Five workflows
1. Organizing incoming documents
Invoices, bank statements and submission packages arrive through email and portals. The workflow reads incoming material, extracts fixed data, links it to the correct client and period, and presents a list of missing documents. Review point: the accounting assistant sees recognized data alongside the source file before anything is posted.
2. Flagging deviations in a general ledger
Comparing with the previous period, identifying unusual entries, marking duplicates. The workflow ranks what stands out and explains why. Review point: read-only. Nothing is corrected; signals feed into the file review.
3. Preparing client correspondence
A recurring information request, a missing-document reminder, an explanation accompanying a tax return. The workflow drafts it using file data. Review point: human approval before sending, always.
4. Looking up professional guidance
Answering a question from internal handbooks, models and documented working agreements, with source and date references. Review point: read-only, with the source always included so users can check whether it is current. An answer without a source is no answer in this context.
5. File preparation
Gathering relevant documents before a discussion or audit, with an overview of changes since last time. Review point: read-only; selection is a proposal supplemented by the person responsible for the file.
Where the boundary lies
Three things do not belong in an automated step: professional judgment, final approval of a tax return or annual financial statements, and any external communication without human approval. Not because a model could never do it, but because responsibility cannot be transferred.
Permissions and client separation
In a firm, separating client files is a principle, not a setting. A workflow reads only within files the user may access; existing permissions remain authoritative. Processing in the EU and logging every step are not extras here but conditions for subsequently accounting for what was read.