Finance operations
Finance exception review
Reconcile the aging report with the conversation behind each balance, then give the reviewer a clear next action.
A balance is only the beginning
An overdue invoice can mean a missed payment, an unresolved delivery issue, or a correction your own team still owes the customer. A reminder generated from an aging report alone treats these cases as equivalent. The useful first job is to reconcile the balance with the evidence around it.
Proto can work across a local receivables export, supporting PDFs, ERP•AI records, and the webmail you open in its built-in browser. Ask for an exception review with a defined cutoff date and an explicit output. The result should show which sources support each proposed next step and which accounts still need investigation.
Define the review before starting
For a first run, choose a bounded set of accounts and provide the relevant report. Identify the fields that match invoices to customers: an invoice number is more reliable than a trading name alone. State the reporting currency, the aging date, and whether credits and unapplied receipts are already reflected in the export.
An illustrative brief:
Review the overdue invoices in this export as of the reporting date. Check the supporting correspondence for disputes, promised payments, and requests for corrected documents. Produce an exception workbook with source references and a proposed next step. Leave messages as drafts and do not update accounting records.
This is a workflow example, not a customer result. Proto’s analysis still needs a finance reviewer, especially where the source data is incomplete or contradictory.
Make the exception queue actionable
Separate what the source says from what the reviewer should decide. A useful workbook includes:
| Field | What it lets the reviewer check |
|---|---|
| Customer and invoice identifier | Whether the correspondence belongs to the balance |
| Open amount and aging date | Which report and period the review covers |
| Exception category | Dispute, promised payment, document issue, or no explanation found |
| Evidence and date | The document, record, or message supporting the classification |
| Proposed next step | Request information, correct a document, prepare a reminder, or escalate |
| Owner and unresolved question | Who can close the gap before action |
Ask Proto to preserve conflicting evidence. A customer saying an invoice was paid is not the same as a matched receipt. A promise to pay is not a payment. These distinctions make the output useful at a review meeting and prevent an attractive summary from hiding unfinished reconciliation.
Keep preparation and execution separate
New Proto installations use Uninterrupted mode. For a process that needs action review, turn it off in Settings and leave Plan mode before starting. Proto then requests approval for supported consequential browser actions such as sending or paying. Bulk ERP•AI updates also request review while sensitive actions are disabled. Deletion of ERP•AI data and access changes remain disabled unless enabled separately. Read the approval controls before connecting operational accounts.
After a reviewer resolves the queue, a second task can prepare the approved messages or record changes. Retain the original export and the reviewed result so the team can compare the proposed action with the actual outcome.
Turn a recurring queue into shared work
If the same exceptions recur, ask Proto for an ERP•AI app with owners, statuses, and next actions. Request a draft explicitly. Agree on the fields and release criteria before making the app available to the team. Start with getting started and a small representative review that includes both straightforward and disputed invoices.