Identify the accounting task you need
Basis positions its product for accountants, with public solution pages for several accounting practice areas. That establishes the intended audience, rather than proving that every task in your firm is supported. Choose one task and name its required financial output before requesting a demonstration. [1]
For this guide, a fictional accounting practice, Birch Ledger, wants help preparing a monthly payroll entry from a source report. The desired output is a proposed entry with the account mapping, amounts and source references available for review. The example does not assume a particular tax treatment or use a real client's data.
A task like this is more useful to evaluate than “make accounting autonomous.” The reviewer can compare the proposal with an expected result and inspect how the agent handles a missing account mapping. The provider can explain what configuration and connection are required for that specific work.
A payroll-entry task to demonstrate
- Source report
Provide a synthetic monthly payroll report with a stable reference.
- Accounting mapping
Supply the firm-approved mapping and one deliberate gap.
- Proposed entry
Inspect amounts, accounts and linked evidence.
- Accountant review
Resolve the missing mapping and confirm the revised proposal.
- Ledger result
Verify the supported destination record and its permission boundary.
Review the documented outputs and their boundaries
Basis's small-firm page describes journal-entry proposals with linked source documents, staged for review before posting. Its corporate-accounting page describes recurring close work, including approved entries and supporting work products. These are vendor-described capabilities, not outcomes measured by this portal. [2] [3]
For Birch, ask to see the prepared entry and the evidence behind each material amount. The source report should remain reachable through an appropriate reference. If the proposed account is based on the firm's mapping, that mapping should be identifiable as well. An explanation without those links is difficult to review.
Confirm how the intended ledger connection works for this task. Ask which operations it supports, what permissions it needs and which record is created after review. Do not infer a universal integration list from an old page, a product logo or a demonstration using another accounting system.
The evidence card below keeps documented statements separate from the questions the buyer must resolve. A missing answer is an open evaluation item. It does not prove that Basis lacks the capability, but it should not be presented as a confirmed feature either.
Documented scope and the questions to verify
Scroll the table to compare all columns.
| Area | Public evidence | Pilot question |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | Homepage addresses accountants | Does the proposed task fit our practice and client structure? |
| Journal preparation | Small-firm page describes reviewed source-linked proposals | Can we inspect every material amount and mapping? |
| Recurring close | Corporate page describes close work and approved entries | Which output is created in our destination system? |
| Integration | Must be confirmed for the intended configuration | Which read and write operations does our connection support? |
| Review | Public material describes review before posting | How does approval bind to a proposal version? |
| Exceptions | Inspect in a controlled demonstration | What happens with a missing mapping or conflicting source? |
| Recovery | Provider-specific behavior must be demonstrated | How is an interrupted write investigated before retry? |
| Commercial fit | Obtain current applicable terms and quote | What access, implementation and ongoing costs apply? |
Inspect review and exception handling in the demonstration
Give the provider a synthetic payroll report with an intentionally missing mapping. The expected response is to identify the affected amount and request a decision from the accountant. The agent should not choose an arbitrary account simply to produce a balanced-looking entry.
Ask the reviewer to change one proposed mapping. Check how the revised proposal relates to the original and whether the source reference remains intact. A clear review boundary should let the accountant understand what will be written and distinguish an approved proposal from an already posted record.
Then ask what happens if the source report is replaced after review. The provider should explain the versioning and renewed-review behavior for the configuration being demonstrated. This is a recommended evaluation question, not a claim that every Basis setup implements the same rule.
Also inspect a failed tool operation. A useful output identifies the unresolved action and its system reference. The team should not rely on a conversational success message if the destination ledger does not contain the expected record.
Separate a vendor example from your own evidence
A customer story can illustrate a workflow a vendor describes, but it does not establish the same result for Birch's documents, mappings or staff. This page adopts no advertised time-saving percentage, accuracy figure or testimonial as our measured finding.
A demonstration is also narrower than a production evaluation. The provider may use prepared inputs and a familiar configuration. Ask which parts depend on implementation work, data preparation or administrator setup. Those answers help the practice understand the actual adoption task.
Use the same synthetic report and expected entry when comparing another product for the same job. Keep the accounting policy and allowed operations constant. If the products perform different outputs, document that difference rather than forcing them into an overall score.
Security and contractual requirements need their own evidence review. The responsible owner should inspect the applicable terms, data-handling commitments and relevant supporting documents. This editorial profile does not certify Basis or substitute for that review.
Ask eight concrete questions before the pilot
Take these questions to a demonstration and keep the answers with the task record. Ask the provider to show the behavior where possible, rather than accepting a general assurance. An unanswered question remains an action for the pilot owner.
- Which exact ledger operation creates the output for this task?
- Can the accountant inspect the source behind every material amount?
- How are our mappings and review rules supplied and versioned?
- What happens when the input lacks a required mapping?
- Which person or role can approve the proposed entry?
- How does a source change after review affect the proposal?
- How is an interrupted write investigated without creating a duplicate?
- Which eligibility, data-handling and commercial conditions apply to our setup?
Run a bounded accounting pilot
Prepare an expected entry for Birch's ordinary report and an expected exception for the missing mapping. Use copied or synthetic records in the agreed environment. Name the accountant who reviews every output and the administrator who controls the connection.
Record source-value errors, mapping errors, missed exceptions and incomplete evidence separately. Also record correct escalations. A stopped task can be the right result when the input does not support an accounting decision. Do not report a broad accuracy rate from a few selected cases.
The pilot decision should identify which task the evidence supports, the required configuration and the permissions that remain outside scope. The comparison page provides consistent criteria for Basis, Dext and an AP-specific alternative. The bookkeeping and audit guides supply additional test cases and evidence-design questions.