AI Automation & Agents
Automate the document handoffs employees repeat
An employee downloads a PDF, renames it, finds the job, copies its details into another system, and forwards it for approval. Each step keeps the process moving, but each also waits for that employee.
For scope, process and project examples, see our AI automation and agents.
Cass & York builds automation for the full journey: receiving the document, checking the information, getting a decision, and confirming that the destination accepted the update.
From the inbox to the job
In this fictional example, a service-completion form arrives by email. The workflow reads the job reference, date, quantity, and customer, then checks them against the job.
The original PDF remains beside the extracted values. Here, the page appears to show job 7813 while the extracted field says 7818. The reviewer opens the document and corrects the reference before approving it.
If the reference is missing entirely, the document appears as unmatched. An authorized user links it to the right job, and the checks run again.
This is useful automation even though a person makes the uncertain decision. The employee receives the document and its suspected problem together instead of assembling both from several applications.
Approval is followed by a confirmed update
After review, the approved information goes to the destination system. The workflow records completion when that system confirms the intended update.
An email being sent is one event. An invoice or other record being accepted is another. Employees need to know which one happened.
If the destination times out, the item should show “Outcome unknown.” The request may have arrived even though its response did not. Check the destination before another write, or repeat the same request using duplicate protection the destination actually supports.
A system without reliable lookup or duplicate controls may leave the item for manual review. Staff need to see that limitation and know who resolves it.
A duplicate and a revision need different treatment
Identical form received again. What the reviewer needs: The existing submission and matching source reference. What happens next: Confirm it is the same submission and avoid another update.
Corrected quantity on a new form. What the reviewer needs: The earlier version, revised values, and approval history. What happens next: Review the change rather than discard it as a duplicate.
Form for a different job with similar details. What the reviewer needs: Both job references and the original documents. What happens next: Keep separate business transactions separate.
Matching file contents can help find repeated files. The job and submission history determine whether a different file is a correction or a new transaction.
Choose the work to automate first
Good starting tasks have identifiable inputs and clear rules: receive a form, confirm the required fields, find its job, and route it for review. Missing or disputed information goes to a person with the evidence attached.
For the completion-form example, a proposed delivery would include the email intake, document reader, validation, review queue, destination connection, and status history. The person reviewing forms and the owner of the destination system would test a typical form, a corrected one, and an interrupted update before rollout. They would also agree who monitors stopped items and handles support.
Related work you can inspect
AutoTakeoff
AutoTakeoff project
Our AutoTakeoff work combined construction PDFs, measurement tools, material records, and document processing in an estimating application.
View Project →Send us the document your team keeps moving by hand
A typical document and a troublesome one will reveal where automation can take over and where judgment belongs.
Book a Workflow Call →