Make your systems
work together.
Nordlith designs and integrates business AI around authoritative records, practical workflows and clear human control. Less re-entry. Fewer loose handoffs. A clearer view of what happened next.
An illustrative workflow. Permissions and approval points are agreed for each implementation.
What business AI integration connects
An integration is not a chatbot beside your business. It connects a specific AI capability to the records, rules and actions that make a real workflow run.
A concrete starting point: one handoff
Take an enquiry that arrives by email, needs a customer record checked, then becomes a draft response or a task. Map the inputs and owner first; make missing records and ambiguous matches visible; keep any consequential send or writeback behind the agreed approval. Start with one handoff your team can inspect from input to result.
What an implementation needs to cover
The scope should identify the workflow and systems, access limits, data mapping, proposed AI behaviour, exception queue, acceptance tests and recovery path. We then integrate a bounded first workflow and test the result against the original record. Wider rollout depends on what that first release actually proves.
Keep the existing system authoritative
Your accounting, CRM or operational platform should not quietly acquire a competing set of records. Connection options depend on the actual product, subscription, API, permissions and data quality. We assess those constraints before promising a connector or a writeback.
What changes the cost
The number of systems is only part of the work. Record quality, access restrictions, approval steps, exception volume, testing and support all affect scope. A bounded read-and-draft workflow is different from authorised transactional automation. Compare those boundaries before comparing quotes.
From documents to useful work
Supplier documents, job sheets and customer correspondence often contain information your team needs in another system. Start by choosing the result: a source-backed answer, proposed fields for review or an authorised record change. Those are different scopes, even when they begin with the same PDF.
Find an answer
Search approved documents and return an answer with its source. Useful for finding a procedure or checking what a document says; it does not alter your business records.
Prepare structured fields
Propose values such as a document reference, date or line item, with evidence from the source. Compare extraction-only output with a review queue so you can see the correction effort before connecting it to a destination.
Review, then make an authorised change
A reviewer resolves uncertain fields and ambiguous record matches. Writing to an accounting, CRM or operational system needs a separately agreed permission boundary, destination mapping and confirmation that the intended record actually changed.
Test the difficult documents before the writeback
Begin with one document family, a defined field set and a named destination owner. Bring redacted ordinary examples and awkward exceptions: poor scans, changed layouts, missing references, duplicates and conflicting values. Hold back a representative set from development for the acceptance check.
Check the destination as well as the document
Define each field and the keys used to match an existing record. Inspect scan quality, document variation, interface permissions and the destination’s support for duplicate detection. A readable document is not proof that the right customer, job or stock record has been identified.
Measure review effort, not just a polished demonstration
Show the source evidence beside proposed fields. Route uncertainty to a person and record which values they correct, which documents cannot be processed and how much review the workflow needs. Compare extraction-only, review-queue and approved-writeback scopes using the same held-back set.
Give the transaction its own acceptance test
Check who can approve, how stale sources and ambiguous matches are handled, and what happens when a document is submitted twice or a write is interrupted. Confirm the destination result and agree a recovery path. Successful extraction alone is not permission to change a record.
A first scope should leave you with the field mapping, reviewed sample results, an exception path and a clear decision on whether writeback is ready. This can sit within a wider integration across enquiries, tasks and operational records—not just document capture.
Discuss your document-to-record workflow ↗ · Need answers from documents instead? ↗
Before we start.
Will you replace our existing software?
Not by default. We look for a useful connection to the tools you already rely on. If the bottleneck is unclear ownership or poor records, adding AI may not be the right first step.
Can AI make changes automatically?
Only within the actions deliberately authorised for that workflow. Sensitive sends, financial changes and other consequential actions need explicit controls; human review may remain the appropriate design.
Can you connect our specific platform?
Compatibility is assessed against the actual platform, plan, available interfaces and permissions. Bring the system names and the handoff you want to improve; do not send credentials in the enquiry.
A useful next step.
What would be easier
if this worked properly?
Tell us where time or follow-through is being lost. We will start with the problem, not a product pitch.
Talk to Nordlith →