L’agente di compliance, schermata per schermata
Fai una domanda, carica i documenti, scegli cosa eseguire. Ogni evidenza torna legata alla clausola e alla pagina da cui proviene. Quattro schermate.
Questa traduzione è generata automaticamente e non è ancora stata revisionata da un madrelingua.
It starts with a question, not a form
Most compliance software starts by asking you to configure it. This starts by asking what you want to know.
The question is in your words. "Is Narbonne Sud eligible for senior debt" is a thing a person actually wants to find out, and it is a long way from the field-by-field setup screen that usually stands between someone and an answer.
Documents go in as they are
Nine documents arrive as a PDF, a spreadsheet and a zip. They come back deduplicated and classified: lease, financial model, EPC quote, grid connection. Nobody renamed anything first.
Then the agent asks which reference to audit against, because that is a decision with consequences and it is not the software's to make. A senior debt playbook and a vendor due diligence playbook look for different things in the same lease.
It tells you what it is about to do
This is the part worth pausing on. Before spending time, the agent asks which passes to run:
- A rules pass. 98 deterministic checks plus LLM, and repeatable. Run it twice, get the same answer twice.
- A reasoning pass. A holistic read of the structure, explicitly non-blocking, because a judgement call should not fail a project on its own.
- A comparison against the regional cluster. Yield and CAPEX against neighbouring plants.
Separating the deterministic checks from the reasoning matters more than it looks. It means you can tell which findings are a rule being applied and which are a model forming a view, and you can treat them differently, which is what anyone signing off on the output needs to do.
Every finding carries its evidence
This is the output that matters, and the reason the rest of it is worth building.
The finding is that the long lease runs 28 years against a 30-year minimum. Underneath it: the source clause, with the document, the section and the page. Then the provenance, the extracted facts the conclusion was built from, with the gap computed between them. On the right, the document itself, at the page, with the phrase highlighted.
You are not being asked to trust the answer. You are being shown the derivation and invited to check it. A blocking finding in a due diligence is a number in a negotiation, and a number in a negotiation has to survive somebody's lawyer.
What this changes
The difference is not that a machine reads faster than a person. It is that the reading is systematic, the same every time, and auditable afterwards.
A human reviewer working through 900 documents gets tired, and the last hundred get less attention than the first hundred. A rules pass does not. And when a buyer asks in three weeks why you flagged the Narbonne lease, the answer is a clause reference and a page number, not a recollection.