UnitNot filled in
Check the requirement.
If the field is required for this service, a rule can prompt the requester to complete it before submission.
Explore the assessment
Sample assessment
The request comes back.Where is it worth investing?
Before automating document checks, understand why the work gets repeated.
Consider an operation that receives service requests through forms and attachments. Missing or conflicting information sends the request back to the person who submitted it.
Follow the analysisExample analysis. Documents and observations prepared to explain the method, with no measured results or tool outputs.
01 / Process map
The cost also lies
in checking again.
Following the same request from intake to forwarding helps separate reading time, waiting for replies and repeated work.
- Receive
- Check
- Request more information
- Check again
- Forward
The identifier follows each version. A person confirms that the documentation is complete before forwarding it; this does not approve the service.
What to measure before estimating gains
- Requests sent back and the reason for each return.
- How many checks each request requires.
- Active time spent reading, correcting and reviewing suggestions.
- Total time until forwarding, including waiting.
- Missed issues and unnecessary returns.
Examine request types and exceptions. If waiting accounts for most of the elapsed time, faster reading may have little effect on the final outcome.
SOL-017 / Reading the example
What does each sign
call for?
A rule checks whether information is present. AI can help compare content. The team confirms the issue and handles the follow-up.
DescriptionNorth
Attachment · p. 1South
Clarify the discrepancy.
AI assistance could highlight both passages. The reviewer asks the requester to confirm the unit, without choosing it on their behalf.
Page 2Unreadable image
Request a readable version.
Having a file does not mean knowing its contents. This page remains unchecked until a usable version is received.
Proposed follow-up: a list of outstanding issues linked to the request version. Once additional information arrives, review what changed.
02 / Opportunity map
Four paths.
One outcome to work toward.
Reduce returns and checking effort while maintaining quality. The alternatives can complement each other.
How to compare without favoring an alternative
Compare rules, AI and manual checks on the same eligible cases, against a human reference established beforehand. Changes to intake need to be evaluated on new submissions, across comparable periods or groups.
Include the requester's effort, review and corrections. AI may miss an issue or flag one that does not exist. Gains from the same reduction in repeated work must not be counted twice.
03 / Conditions for execution
Testing starts
with preparation.
If criteria, usable documents or people to review them are missing, the next step is to put those conditions in place.
Shared criteria
What is complete, incomplete or needs clarification.
Documents and access
A representative sample, authorized use and a defined environment.
Responsible people
Who understands the exceptions, reviews the work and decides how to proceed.
What needs to be ready
Agree on request types and required attachments; select versions and remove unnecessary data; define permissions, document destinations and retention. Separate cases used to adjust the solution from those reserved for evaluation.
Assign who resolves discrepancies, records corrections and stops the test. Keep a way to return to manual checks.
04 / Priority and feasibility
Invest where the cause
justifies the change.
In this scenario, the recommendation depends on what the investigation confirms.
If predictable omissions predominate
Improve intake and rules.
Test instructions and checks that prevent returns before adding another tool.
If ambiguity remains a significant issue
Evaluate AI within a clear scope.
Compare reading assistance against the manual reference, including sources, errors and review effort.
What goes into the calculation
Preparation, technology, review, maintenance and operation. Use observed volume and uncertainty scenarios to estimate total cost. Time freed up increases potential capacity; it only reduces spending when a corresponding change has been demonstrated.
If manual checks meet the need at a lower total cost, they can remain in place.
05 / Plan for the next deliverable
A comparison
that supports a decision.
The assessment delivers the analysis and the plan. The proposed evaluation needs its own scope, responsible people and authorization.
Define
Scope, sample, reference and criteria for quality, effort and cost.
Compare
Eligible alternatives, the full task, exceptions and inconclusive cases.
Decide
Evidence, limits, recommendation and who is responsible for the next action.
The value of the assessment
Know what to change.
And why it is worth changing.
A decision tied to the cause of the problem, the alternatives and the company's conditions. This is the basis for directing investment and defining the next step.
Let's talk
What work gets repeated
in your company?
Tell us where requests get sent back, information gets lost or deliveries are delayed.