Checks are scattered.
Invoice, PO and receipt data often sit in separate exports. A status or total alone does not tell a reviewer which row disagrees or why.
Accounts payable / Evidence-led reconciliation
Find the discrepancy. Follow the evidence.
Compare supplier invoices with purchase orders and goods receipts. See which records disagree, why a check was triggered, and what needs human review—before deciding what to do next.
ILLUSTRATIVE DATA · NO CUSTOMER FILES REQUIRED
Start with the sample. Agree the expected answer. Pay for a bounded evaluation—not an unverified savings promise.
01 / INVOICEIN
INV-1003
HARBOR SUPPLY
ITEM PART-C20 × $9.00
PRICE REVIEW
02 / PURCHASE ORDERPO
PO-5003
HARBOR SUPPLY
ITEM PART-C20 × $8.50
PRICE DIFFERENCE
03 / GOODS RECEIPTGR
GR-7003
PO-5003 / PART-C
RECEIVED15 OF 20
SHORT RECEIPT
Illustrative records · inspect the runnable sample below
Evidence, not a black-box scoreEach finding points to source fields and the rule that triggered it.
Designed for AP reviewInspect exceptions, compare records and export a review worklist.
Browser-side sampleUploaded CSVs are processed locally in this version.
02 / Investigation
Follow the exception to its source.
Run the included sample or load your own approved CSV exports. Select any result to inspect the source values, matching rule and evidence trail. This demonstration runs in your browser.
Supplier invoicesSOURCE A / CSV
Invoice ID, supplier, PO reference, item, quantity and unit price.
Purchase ordersSOURCE B / CSV
PO line, supplier, item, ordered quantity and agreed unit price.
Goods receiptsSOURCE C / CSV
Receipt identifier, PO line, item and quantity received.
Sample records are preloaded. Run to produce the report.
03 / Who it serves
For finance teams that need to explain a mismatch—not just flag one.
Designed for accounts-payable leads, controllers, and finance operations teams reviewing supplier invoices against purchase orders and goods receipts. Most relevant where spreadsheet checks are repetitive and exceptions need a clear trail back to source rows.
One reviewable trail.
Compare configured fields, see the triggered rule, inspect source-row references and export exceptions for human review.
Assist review; do not replace it.
This is an early-stage workbench, not an ERP, payment approval system, audit certification or promise that every exception will be detected.
Why consider a test?
Choose it for inspectability—not for a claim we cannot yet prove.
- Rules and compared values are visible.
- Sample data can be reset explicitly.
- Results and exceptions can be exported for review.
- One workflow, clear boundaries, and a written acceptance checklist.
A bounded evaluation
Start with one workflow. Validate every finding.
Use approved anonymized CSV exports to test one invoice-to-purchase-order-to-receipt workflow. The evaluation compares tool output with a human-reviewed reference set and documents what was caught, missed, or incorrectly flagged.
- Agree the workflow.Choose one AP process, supported CSV columns and the exception types that matter.
- Approve the boundaries.Confirm sample size, exclusions, data handling and acceptance criteria in writing.
- Run the evaluation.Process up to 500 combined rows after clean inputs and scope approval.
- Review the evidence.Receive an exception CSV, findings report and 30-minute handoff within five business days.
A scoped paid evaluation · Terms agreed privately
01Scope
One AP workflow, up to 500 combined CSV rows, and agreed checks.
02Agree terms
Confirm the fee, timeline, deliverables and acceptance criteria with LedgerTrace before work begins.
03Payment
Written scope and acceptance criteria first. Payment through an agreed, legitimate route before work begins.
04Evidence
Exception CSV, findings report, false-positive review and a 30-minute handoff.
The evaluation is scoped with each buyer before work begins. Use synthetic or client-approved anonymized data. LedgerTrace does not claim production-grade security, ERP integration or guaranteed detection. Fees, timeline, deliverables and acceptance criteria are agreed in writing; scope changes require written agreement.
04 / Buyer assurance
Proof before promises.
Do not buy a savings claim or a black box. Inspect the sample, agree what counts as a correct result, and pay only for a bounded evaluation with explicit deliverables.
Try the browser demo first
The included sample runs locally in your browser. Review the inputs, triggered rules and exported exceptions before sharing any business data. No account or upload is required to explore it.
Define the expected answer
Before evaluation, agree the sample/reference cases, supported CSV columns, checks in scope and acceptance criteria. Ambiguous records stay reviewable; they are not silently treated as resolved.
Report misses as well as catches
The report should distinguish confirmed findings, false positives and missed exceptions against the agreed reference set. If no suitable reference set exists, we define it with you before making accuracy claims.
Commercial honesty
LedgerTrace is an early, static browser-based pilot—not a certified accounting system. There are no claimed customer results, accuracy rate, savings figure, security certification or production readiness. A paid evaluation covers the agreed assessment, not a guaranteed saving or positive finding. You receive the agreed outputs even if the tool misses cases or produces false positives.
05 / Methodology
A finding should explain itself.
LedgerTrace applies explicit comparisons to the records provided. It does not infer intent, decide whether an invoice is fraudulent, or replace an AP review process.
Connect the source rows
Normalize identifiers and compare invoice lines with purchase-order and receipt rows using PO number and item code. Missing or ambiguous relationships must remain visible.
Show the rule and values
Flag configured conditions such as duplicate invoice IDs, supplier differences, price deltas, quantity excesses, missing receipts and unmatched source rows.
Keep the human decision
Inspect the evidence, record review notes and export the worklist. A finding is not a payment instruction, and opening it does not resolve it.
Current evaluation boundary
This is a static browser-based pilot, not production accounting software. It has no server upload, user accounts, saved cloud history, ERP integrations, payment actions, currency conversion, tax/credit-note treatment or robust split-line matching. Use synthetic or approved anonymized data and validate outputs against original documents.
06 / Paid evaluation
Evaluate it against a known answer.
Start with a scoped evaluation. Discuss one invoice-to-PO-to-receipt workflow, the relevant sample size, an exception export, a findings report and a review. The fee, timeline and deliverables are agreed with you before work begins. No payment or accounting action is automated.
You should not have to trust a claim on this page. Before payment, both sides agree the workflow, input format, test cases and acceptance criteria in writing. The evaluation compares outputs with a human-reviewed reference set, records false positives and misses, and gives you evidence to decide whether further investment is justified.
Agreed reference set with human-reviewed expected outcomes
Results separated into matches, false positives and misses
A traceable report and agreed review criteria
Written scope, agreed exclusions and acceptance criteria
Evaluation scope builderTERMS AGREED PRIVATELY
Step 01 / Source records
Step 02 / Checks to discuss
These are scope topics, not a guarantee that every check is fully supported in every data shape. Confirm edge cases and acceptance criteria before quoting.
Step 03 / Review the brief
Proposed evaluation briefDraft
Source types3 selected
Checks6 selected
DeliverablesFindings report + CSV
Commercial termsAgreed together
Scope, fee, timeline and acceptance criteria are agreed before work begins. Do not send confidential files before a written agreement.