Department automation
A transposed case pack in the item master, a spec revision that never reached the floor, a proof approved against last year's copy deck — validation errors are cheap to make and expensive to discover at the dock. We build automations that do the line-by-line reading and comparison your team currently does by eye, then put every finding in front of a person with the evidence attached. AI drafts the check; your people make the call.
The grind
Every new SKU means the same attributes entered into your ERP, customer portals, and retailer setup forms — then re-verified by hand. One wrong unit of measure or case quantity propagates quietly until a shipment bounces.
The master spec is at revision D, the customer's copy is at C, and the version on the floor is B. Someone has to diff them line by line, and that someone has better things to do.
Comparing a proof against approved copy, bilingual text, allergen statements, declared weights, and barcode numbers is exacting work — and it lands right when the press slot is booked and the pressure to skim is highest.
The staff you trust with tolerance calls and regulatory questions spend their days on character-by-character checking a machine could draft for them.
The split
We automate
SKU and item-master cross-checks — every attribute compared across systems, with both values shown on any mismatch
Spec revision diffing — current rev against prior, every changed line listed before anyone signs
Artwork-to-copy comparison — proof text read and matched against the approved copy deck, declared weights, and code formats
Certificate of analysis intake — test values extracted and checked against spec limits, out-of-range results flagged
Evidence-first exception queues — each flag arrives with the source lines side by side, ready for a yes or no
We protect
Release and proof approval — nothing passes, prints, or posts without a named person's sign-off
Tolerance and deviation judgment — whether a variance is acceptable stays a human call
Regulatory and labeling decisions — compliance interpretation stays with the people accountable for it
Manual checking skill — automation runs in parallel until proven, and your team can always work by hand
How it runs
AI drafts. A person reviews and approves. Nothing touches a live system without a human gate — that's the architecture, not a phase.
The full build architecture →A worked example
A revised proof arrives for a relabeled SKU. The automation reads the proof and compares it against the approved copy deck and the current spec revision: it flags that the declared net weight reads 500 g where the spec says 480 g, and that the French ingredient statement still matches the prior revision. Your packaging specialist opens the queue, sees each flag with the proof text and the spec line side by side, confirms the two real errors, and dismisses a false flag on a stylized hyphen. She sends corrections back to the designer — the system approved nothing, rejected nothing, and touched no live record on its own. What passes and what goes back before press stayed her call, which is the point.
The language model's only task is lifting text off the proof or spec PDF — declared weights, ingredient statements, barcode digits — so the deterministic checks have clean values to compare.
Your people keep making every call; they just stop burning attention on character-level comparison to get there.
Yes. The same architecture — AI extracts, deterministic logic compares, a person approves before anything touches a live system — runs in live operations today at a North American manufacturing and packaging company, handling vendor quote processing, commission calculation, shipment tracking, and invoice reconciliation on the client's own servers. Document and data validation applies that identical pattern to specs, SKUs, and artwork. We don't claim results we haven't produced.
Other departments we automate
We sit with your team, map how the work actually happens, and draw the split: what's worth automating, and what automation should never touch. You keep the map either way.
Map your workflows