How to separate the buyer from the daily user of AI document processing

Map buyer, daily user, champion, administrator, and approver separately. One person may hold several roles, but that is something to establish in interviews. Enthusiasm from a user does not establish budget, and approval from an executive does not establish daily adoption.

Start with the decision

Follow one real purchase process from request through implementation. Ask each participant what they decide, what information they need, and what could stop the project. Put unresolved roles on the map instead of assuming a title implies authority.

The illustrative scenario

This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.

The fictional product extracts invoice data for an accounts payable team. Staff review exceptions before information enters the accounting system. Supplier formats and duplicate documents make the input stream uneven.

A misplaced decimal or duplicate record can matter more than an average extraction score. Define the fields and events that require review before comparing workflows.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of AI document processing in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.

Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Use permissioned documents, field-level corrections, duplicate flags, and reconciliation results. Keep document type and supplier format visible instead of relying on one blended score. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.

Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. The map is useful when it changes the next conversation or experiment. A missing administrator may explain implementation delays; a missing budget owner may explain why a well-liked demo never becomes a purchase. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.

Use this worksheet

Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.

1. Who feels the pain?
2. Who controls the budget?
3. Who configures the system?
4. Who can block rollout?
5. Who measures the outcome?

Questions specific to this scenario

• Which fields require exact agreement?
• How are duplicate invoices handled?
• Who signs off on reconciliation?

Use permissioned documents, field-level corrections, duplicate flags, and reconciliation results. Keep document type and supplier format visible instead of relying on one blended score.

A concrete next test

Select permissioned invoices from different supplier formats and include a duplicate. Trace each field through correction and export to reconciliation. Ask the accounts payable owner which error would block use even if most fields were extracted correctly.

Interpret the result

The map is useful when it changes the next conversation or experiment. A missing administrator may explain implementation delays; a missing budget owner may explain why a well-liked demo never becomes a purchase.

Compare correct, reconciled records with the current process. Include document intake, exception review, and corrections after export in the time and cost model.

Sources and method

These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.

• a16z: A Framework for Finding a Design Partner
• NIST: AI Risk Management Framework