# Sumarity for finance teams > Bank reconciliation, cash application and invoice matching that close themselves, except for what needs your team. Source: https://www.sumarity.ai/for/finance-teams/ For controllers and finance teams # Close on the exceptions. Not the matching. Sumarity matches the bank, customer receipts and supplier invoices across your systems, worded in English, German or French. Code ties out every figure, the Judgement Engine settles the easy calls, and your team gets an inbox of what's really open. Bring one process See the track record Code proves the numbers. People settle the doubts. Bank reconciliation · run 2026-09 · v7 Example run | Date | Line | Amount | Decided by | 02.09 | STRIPE PAYOUT 0902Ties to 14 card sales, less fees | 1,284.50 | Code · tied | 03.09 | RUECKLASTSCHRIFTReturned payment · 0.97 · reverses receipt R-1182 | −320.00 | Engine · proven | 04.09 | GUTSCHRIFT M KELLER AGTiming match to INV-2207 · 0.91 · payer named | 450.00 | Engine · proven | 05.09 | CHQ 004417Cheque number matches ledger, one to one | −2,150.00 | Code · matched | 08.09 | VIREMENT REF 88213Two customers paid 1,200.00 · no proof which | 1,200.00 | To a person | 09.09 | INV-2214 ledger 1,540.00Keying error? · 0.73 · below the cutoff | 1,450.00 | To a person | Settled 4 To a person 2 Settled wrong 0 Illustrative lines in the style of our test months. Amber rows are the Judgement Engine's calls; each settles only above its cutoff and when its code check agrees. What we'd run for you ## Fewer items, and nothing missed On nine months it had never seen, worded in English, German and French, the tuned workflow cut the team's inbox by two thirds and surfaced every real exception. Controllers, shared services and treasury in growing companies Bank and cash reconciliationTestedIs this receipt that invoice, paid days apart?Items for the team 236 → 73, false alarms 75 → 9, 108 of 108 exceptions surfaced. 0 settled wrong. Customer cash applicationWhich invoices does this remittance pay? Invoice and payment matchingA price change, or overbilling? Financial reporting tie-outDoes it tie out, and is the variance explained? Intercompany reconciliationWhich side has it wrong? Sumarity for other work: Asset managers Accounting and tax firms Restaurants and hotels · everything The number that matters most 0 ## wrong answers settled without a person, in every test we have run. Models are sometimes wrong, ours included. The workflow is built so that a wrong answer has to pass a measured cutoff and a check in code before it can settle. So far, none has. | Test | Settled wrong | Bank reconciliation, nine held-out monthsWording tuning never saw · 108 real exceptions, all surfaced | 0 | The same months, three different judgement modelsJudgement Engine and two frontier models in the same seat | 0 | Against a 1,154-line program an AI wrote for the jobThree unseen months · 36 of 36 exceptions | 0 | Custody statements from a live fund42 real lines first seen after tuning | 0 | UK pub VAT returns, a pub held out of tuning105 judgements · 15 of 15 problems reached the preparer | 0 | Deliberately wrong picks at 100% confidenceFed to a changed check before it went live · 36 of 36 rejected | 0 | Total | 0 How it works ## Operations work is mostly rules. The rest is judgement. Sumarity gives each part to whatever does it best: code for arithmetic, the Judgement Engine for lightning fast decisions, and people for what stays uncertain. 01 ### Describe The expert writes a paragraph. Sumarity asks the questions that change the design, then writes the workflow. Expert revisions 02 ### Validate Numbers only from code, every doubt to a person, every path handled. What fails is repaired before anyone sees it. 43 errors → 0 in one repair 03 ### Review Every step on a canvas in plain words, editable and versioned. What runs is what was reviewed. draft → validated → published 04 ### Run Code matches and ties out. The Judgement Engine decides, and learns when it cannot. People get an inbox. 2,112 lines in 4.5 s 05 ### Tune Rulings become an answer key. Better questions are proposed, tested on data they haven't seen, and lets you decide. 77% → 97% on unseen lines Every decision your team makes in the inbox goes back into step 5. It improves itself, with permission. What the platform enforces ## In this work, mistakes are expensive. So the rules aren't optional. These aren't settings a busy team can switch off. The validator refuses a workflow that breaks them. Left alone, AI invents a plausible number.The AI never writes an amount or a date. Code works out every figure. It is sure, but not right.Nothing settles below the measured cutoff, or against a code check. It fails quietly.Every unsure or unproven call must reach a person. Every path is handled. It changes when its vendor updates it.The process changes only when an admin publishes a new version. It can't show its work.Every call is on record: what it saw, how sure, which version, who reviewed it. It answers questions it wasn't asked.Each judgement is one narrow question with a fixed set of answers. It doesn't learn from your team.Your rulings tune its questions and cutoffs, tested first on data they haven't seen. One person can approve their own work.Separation of duties and sign-off are enforced, not written in a policy. Industries and use cases ## Wherever the work is mostly arithmetic, with judgement calls in between. Every one of these has the same shape. Code does the matching and the sums, the Judgement Engine answers one narrow question per item, and whatever stays uncertain goes to a person. Codematches, ties out, works out every figureJudgementone narrow question, measuredA personwhatever stays uncertain ### Finance and accounting Controllers, shared services, treasury Matching and tying out, where most lines are easy and the rest need someone who knows the business. Bank and cash reconciliationIs this receipt that invoice, paid days apart? Customer cash applicationWhich invoices does this remittance pay? Invoice and payment matchingA price change, or overbilling? Financial reporting tie-outDoes it tie out, and is the variance explained? ### Accounting and tax services Outsourced bookkeepers, tax preparers, practices Many clients, the same process each period, and a filing at the end that has to be right. VAT return preparationWhat was this purchase used for, and is any VAT reclaimable? Bookkeeping and account codingWhich account does this belong to? Expense and policy reviewWithin policy? Client queries and chasingHas the client's answer settled the question? ### Risk and compliance Compliance, financial crime, onboarding teams High-volume alerts where most are noise, every decision needs a record, and the real ones must never be missed. Sanctions and screening alertsThe same party, or a namesake? Transaction monitoringWorth escalating? Vendor and client onboardingComplete and consistent? Periodic KYC reviewHas anything material changed? ### Fund and investment operations Administrators, depositaries, asset managers Statements in every custodian's layout, against your own book, with breaks that have to be explained and chased. Custody and position reconciliationA redemption, a fee, or a transfer of subscription cash? Trade and corporate action breaksTiming, or a real error? Fee and expense checksIn line with the agreement? Price and valuation reviewIs this move plausible? The library ## A workflow for every process. In every industry. Standard workflows, each tested against an answer key before it's published. Start from the closest one and describe how yours differs. ### Finance and accounting 18 workflows ### Accounting, tax and Treuhand firms 8 workflows ### Banking and payments 11 workflows ### Wealth, asset management and fund administration 9 workflows ### Insurance 8 workflows ### Healthcare 7 workflows ### Manufacturing and supply chain 7 workflows ### Retail, hospitality and consumer 6 workflows ### Logistics and transport 4 workflows ### Energy and utilities 4 workflows ### Telecoms 3 workflows ### Real estate 4 workflows ### Public sector 4 workflows ### Legal and compliance 3 workflows ### HR and payroll 4 workflows By processReconciliation and matching Payables, receivables and payments Filings, returns and reporting Documents, onboarding and KYC Claims, disputes and exceptions Screening, audit and compliance Close and accounting Billing and revenue assurance Browse the library Track record ## Three processes, three domains. Every figure from a run. Each workflow was authored through the product from an expert's description, then scored against a known answer. Bank reconciliationfinance · nine held-out months UK pub VAT returnsaccounting service · a held-out pub Custody reconciliationfund operations · real statements Tested against the alternatives ## Why not just hand it to an AI? We tried that too. Same brief, same data, same scoring. These are the three things a capable team would try instead. Give a frontier model the whole job Each model got the brief and both exports and returned the finished reconciliation, five times on each of two data sets. | | Sumarity | Opus 5.5 | GPT-6 Sol | Exceptions (of 108) | 108 | 108 | 95 | Same result, 10 runs | 10/10 | 10/10 | 2/10 | 2,112-line account | 4.5 s | 262 s | – | Record per line | Yes | No | No Past about 6,000 lines the job no longer fits in one reply. Ask an AI to write the code Opus wrote a careful 1,154-line program from the same brief and sample files. Both then ran on three months worded in ways neither had seen. | | Sumarity | AI-written code | Exceptions (of 36) | 36 | 36 | Settled wrongly | 0 | 0 | Judgement items to people | 3 | 14 | False alarms | 3 | 14 The program's rules were written from the sample's wording. Nothing in it learns from a review. Put a frontier model in the judgement seat The same workflow and checks, with only the judgement model swapped. 180 decisions with known answers. | | Engine | Opus 5.5 | GPT-6 Sol | Answered right | 100% | 99% | 100% | Median per call | 0.21 s | 1.76 s | 1.47 s | Per 1,000 calls | Included | $4.67 | $1.36 | Settled wrong | 0 | 0 | 0 The checks keep any model safe. What changes is the bill and the wait. Reasoning, audit trails and human approval are now common. Checks in code, measured confidence and tested changes are not. ### Checked, not just explained Every call declares how it is checked. What code can't check, people audit by sample, and every doubt goes to a person. ### Confidence measured Cutoffs come from backtests against your team's rulings, not from what a model says about itself. ### Changes tested first Each improvement runs on data it hasn't seen, and against deliberately wrong answers, before an admin can publish it. Start with a pilot ## Bring one process. Run it alongside yours. A few weeks in parallel on your own data, at our cost, then a line-by-line comparison: what it settled, what it sent to people, what it caught, and the time it took. Bank and cash reconciliationInvoice and payment matchingFee and expense checks Contact us sumarity.ai - 01 Start from a tuned template, or describe itA paragraph from the person who runs the process today. - 02 Review the workflow with usOn the canvas, step by step, in plain words. - 03 Run it in parallelYour process stays the process of record. - 04 Your rulings tune its callsEvery inbox decision joins the answer key. - 05 Compare, line by lineThen decide, on your own evidence. Contact us ## Tell us about the process. We'll come back to you. A few details are enough to start. We'll reply to arrange a conversation with the person who runs the process today. - We reply to set up a first call. - We look at the process with your expert, and say whether it fits. - If it does, we scope a pilot run alongside yours.