Define the entry the agent will prepare
An accounting task becomes testable when you name the record it should produce. For a purchase invoice, that might be a draft with supplier, date, amount, account and attached evidence. For a reconciliation task, it might be a proposed allocation with a reason. A summary that sounds sensible is not a substitute for either record.
This guide follows a fictional workshop, Cedar Works, which buys $600 of materials. The source invoice contains the supplier name, a description and a date. The accountant wants an agent to prepare the classification and preserve the invoice reference. The example makes no tax assumption and does not prescribe a journal for every jurisdiction; the accountant defines the appropriate treatment for the workshop.
Start with the permitted action. If the pilot allows only proposals, the agent should not post an entry when its confidence is high. The approval requirement comes from the agreed workflow and system permissions. Model confidence can help organize review, but it does not grant authority.
From source document to reviewed record
- Source document
Keep Cedar invoice C-600 and its original description.
- Extraction
Read supplier, date and amount without silently completing missing values.
- Proposed entry
Apply the defined accounting policy and explain ambiguous classification.
- Accountant review
Check significant fields and record changes with reasons.
- System action
Create or post only the record authorized for this workflow.
Keep extraction and judgment visible
Extracting “600.00” from a document is different from deciding whether the purchase belongs in materials, equipment or another category. The first is a question about source content. The second depends on the company's accounting policy and the facts of the transaction. Reviewers need to see which decision the agent made and why.
For Cedar, suppose the document says “replacement bench components.” An agent may find earlier purchases from the same supplier classified as materials. That history is useful context, but it does not establish the nature of this purchase. The proposal should point to the description and flag the ambiguity rather than treating the supplier name as a complete accounting rule.
Retain both the extracted value and the proposed interpretation when they differ. If the accountant changes the category, record the correction and the reason. A future reviewer should be able to distinguish a poor extraction from a reasonable extraction followed by an unsuitable classification.
The workflow map separates these steps so the team can assign controls to the right place. Requiring a person to reread every value may defeat the purpose of the pilot, while hiding all source evidence leaves the reviewer unable to check the significant decisions.
Compare products by their documented work
Basis describes accounting agents for accounting teams. Dext documents field suggestions and guidance within Costs and Sales. Those descriptions identify different starting points for evaluation; they are not evidence that the products perform the same complete accounting workflow. [1] [2]
Use the task matrix to decide what to ask in a demonstration. Ask for a real example of the output in the intended destination system, the source reference that accompanies it and the steps needed to approve or correct it. If the demonstration shows a draft, do not record the result as autonomous posting.
The detailed product pages cover the relevant public evidence and open questions. The comparison page uses consistent criteria across products. This category guide focuses on the process so you can identify which comparison is relevant before spending time on a product shortlist.
Questions tied to documented product scope
Scroll the table to compare all columns.
| Product | Documented starting point | Demonstration to request |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Agents intended for accounting work | Show the specific task, source evidence and reviewed output |
| Dext AI Assist | Suggestions and guidance in Costs and Sales | Show field suggestions, explanation and manual-review configuration |
| Your accounting system | Destination records and permissions must be checked separately | Show how a proposed record becomes an approved or posted record |
Build review around the decisions that matter
For Cedar's invoice, the accountant checks supplier identity, amount, business purpose, classification and period. A clear review screen brings those fields together with the source evidence. It should not force the accountant to reconstruct the proposed record from several disconnected messages.
Mark missing information explicitly. If the invoice date is unreadable, a posting date inferred from upload time should remain a proposal requiring review. If the supplier cannot be identified, the agent should not create an approved supplier merely to finish the task. The output can be an exception with the document reference and a named next step.
Prepare a review rule for changes after approval. If someone replaces the source document or adjusts the amount, the earlier decision no longer describes the same proposal. Requiring a renewed review for material changes is our recommended pilot rule. Your accounting owner should define what counts as material for the task.
Make corrections traceable rather than overwriting the initial suggestion without explanation. The reviewer needs a before value, an after value, a reason and a reference to the resulting record. This helps the team understand whether the same error is recurring and whether a configuration change actually addresses it.
Handle duplicates, close and unresolved cases
Include a copied invoice in the evaluation. The document may have a different filename while retaining the same supplier and invoice reference. The agent should identify the possible duplicate and show the evidence. It should not create a second proposal simply because the file arrived through another channel.
Include a document for a closed period as well. The accounting owner, rather than the model, determines the permitted correction process. The agent can gather the source and explain the conflict, then route it to the person responsible for that period. Do not let a generic instruction to “finish bookkeeping” override the period boundary.
Reconciliation introduces a different type of uncertainty. A plausible invoice category does not prove that a payment belongs to that invoice. Use a separate allocation record and preserve any remaining balance. The bookkeeping and payment-matching guides provide datasets that make these distinctions visible.
Before close, unresolved proposals should have an owner and a reason. A queue of “needs review” records without enough context merely shifts investigation to the accountant. Ask the agent to include the relevant document, the disputed field and the specific evidence that is missing.
Choose acceptance criteria before the run
Write a small set of expected outcomes for Cedar: an ordinary purchase becomes a traceable draft; an ambiguous description requires review; a duplicate does not create a second accounting obligation; and a closed-period item goes to the period owner. These outcomes test the workflow rather than the fluency of the explanation.
Measure wrong classifications, missed exceptions and the work needed to correct them separately. Also inspect the records the agent declined to process. A tool can appear accurate if its evaluation quietly excludes difficult documents. Keep the test set and expected outcomes available so the team can repeat the same check after changing guidance or permissions.
The next useful step is a bounded pilot in the intended destination system, with copied or synthetic records and a named accountant reviewing the outputs. Grant a broader action only when its evidence and recovery process have been evaluated. The control guide explains how to connect that decision to permissions and audit records.