Invoice re-keying (Excel → ERP)

Live Finance Correlation key: invoice_no · 96.1%

Live Automated since Feb 2026 — 11.4 h/week reclaimed across everyone who runs it, 264 h to date. 0 h/week of hands-on work is left, and that is the figure quoted everywhere on this page.

Case footprint: median 3.6 h elapsed, 14m 10s of it hands-on, across 1 work session and 0.1 calendar days. 13 of the 13 happy-path waits exceed the 150 s idle-gap threshold, but a gap only ends a work session when it outlasts one (59 min, the fleet's mean). None here do: the case is put down and picked up inside the same sitting, while the person works other cases.

Cases: 312
Activities: 16
Variants: 47
Median throughput: 3.6 h
p95 throughput: 22.3 h
Working time / Waiting time: 14m 10s / 3.4 h
Rework: 18%
Fitness: 0.89
Precision: 0.74

No filters — showing every case

312 of 312 cases (100%)

Directly-follows map

Discovered from the event log. The editable automation design is the last tab.

showing 16 of 16 activities · 100% of activity instances covered

Geometry is computed at build time, so nothing reflows when you filter. 77 of 117 directly-follows relations sit below the 0.20 noise threshold and are hidden; together they carry 4.6% of transitions.

Node fill 0–20%20–40%40–60%60–80%80–100% Happy path Loop back Self-loop

Five discrete steps. Edge thickness is a square-root scale on frequency, so the busiest edge is 8 px and the quietest 1 px.

Where the hours go

Edges ranked by total recoverable waiting time, not mean.

8.9% working 91.1% waiting · mean 25m 38s · p95 87m 09s · 289 cases affected · 11% of total cycle time
6.7% working 93.3% waiting · mean 23m 04s · p95 78m 26s · 289 cases affected · 9.9% of total cycle time
4.7% working 95.3% waiting · mean 20m 41s · p95 70m 19s · 296 cases affected · 9.1% of total cycle time
8.5% working 91.5% waiting · mean 18m 47s · p95 63m 52s · 308 cases affected · 8.6% of total cycle time
7.5% working 92.5% waiting · mean 18m 11s · p95 61m 49s · 253 cases affected · 6.8% of total cycle time
10.1% working 89.9% waiting · mean 15m 39s · p95 53m 13s · 215 cases affected · 5.1% of total cycle time
7.7% working 92.3% waiting · mean 13m 03s · p95 44m 22s · 245 cases affected · 4.8% of total cycle time
6.6% working 93.4% waiting · mean 10m 07s · p95 34m 24s · 296 cases affected · 4.5% of total cycle time

Variant explorer

One row per distinct end-to-end activity sequence, ranked by case count. Row 1 is the happy path and every other row is column-aligned to it, so deviations read as vertical discontinuities.

Top 12 variants cover 82.3% of cases.

Select exactly two variants to compare.

#	Variant	Sequence	Cases	% of cases	Cumulative	Median	p95	Steps	Δ vs happy path	Conformance	Compare
1	V-01 Happy path	OWRLVHRPCDOSMPCCKEPJVTFD	88	28.2%	28.2%	2.5 h	16.6 h	12	—	Conforming	Compare V-01
2	V-02	OWRLVHRPCDOSSWMPCCKEPJVTFD	29	9.3%	37.5%	2.3 h	15 h	12	—	Deviating	Compare V-02
3	V-03	OWFRRLVHRPCDOSMPCCKEPJVTFD	25	8%	45.5%	2.8 h	20.1 h	12	—	Deviating	Compare V-03
4	V-04	OWSARLVHRPCDOSMPCC^×4KEPJVTFD	22	7.1%	52.6%	5 h	39.4 h	16	+4 · 2.5 h	Deviating	Compare V-04
5	V-05	OWFRRLVHRPCD^×2OSMPCCKEPJVTFD	19	6.1%	58.7%	4.2 h	16.3 h	14	+2 · 1.7 h	Deviating	Compare V-05
6	V-06	SWOWRLVHRPCDOSMPCCKE^×2PJVTFD	16	5.1%	63.8%	3.5 h	16 h	14	+2 · 59m 13s	Deviating	Compare V-06
7	V-07	OWRQRLVHRPCDOSRQMPCCKEPJVTFD	14	4.5%	68.3%	3.4 h	24.5 h	13	+1 · 54m 22s	Deviating	Compare V-07
8	V-08	OWRL^×4VHRPCDOSMPCCKEPJ^×4VTFD	12	3.8%	72.1%	5.7 h	45 h	18	+6 · 3.2 h	Conforming	Compare V-08
9	V-09	OWRLVHRPCDOSMPCCSAKEPJVTFD	10	3.2%	75.3%	3.7 h	13.4 h	13	+1 · 68m 21s	Deviating	Compare V-09
10	V-10	OWRLRQVHRPCD^×2OSMPCCKEPJVTFD	9	2.9%	78.2%	3.3 h	24.6 h	14	+2 · 47m 15s	Deviating	Compare V-10
11	V-11	OWRLVHRPCDOSMP^×2CCKEPJVTFD	7	2.2%	80.4%	3.4 h	24.1 h	13	+1 · 53m 37s	Conforming	Compare V-11
12	V-12	OWRLVHRPCDOSMPCCKEPJVTFD	6	1.9%	82.3%	2.4 h	16 h	11	-1 · -8m 06s	Deviating	Compare V-12
—	Other variants (23) · 7.4% of cases	Activity sequence —	23	7.4%	100%	—	—	—	—	—

27 variants (57.4% of all variants) occur exactly once, together 8.7% of cases.

Variant distribution

Rank on a log scale against cases on a log scale, with cumulative coverage on the right axis.

Cases (log scale) Cumulative coverage (%) Variant rank (log scale) 11 variants cover 80% of cases

Variant comparison

Two variants on the same alignment columns. Colour says which side; hatching repeats it, so the diff survives greyscale.

Variant A

Variant B

A · V-01

Merged activity set

B · V-02

Merged activity set

Every alignment column, coloured by which side uses it.

In both Only in A Only in B In neither

List of changes

Side by side
Side by side	A	B	Δ

Attributes associated with each branch

These are associations measured on the log, not causes. Every rule prints the number of cases it was measured on.

Supplier country `supplier_country`

305 of 312 cases · 2.1% missing

ES71 · 22.8%
DE59 · 18.9%
FR49 · 15.7%
NL41 · 13.1%
IT34 · 10.9%
PT28 · 9%
Other23 · 7.4%

Rule statements

Ranked by lift × support. Each rule is a sentence you can read aloud.

When vat_code = S10 → the case takes “Request the missing purchase order” in 20.4% of cases (baseline 10.3%, lift 1.98×, n = 70).
20.4% confidence 10.3% baseline 1.98× lift n = 70
When channel = Supplier portal → the case takes “Obtain a second approval” in 29.2% of cases (baseline 11.2%, lift 2.61×, n = 48).
29.2% confidence 11.2% baseline 2.61× lift n = 48
When amount_band = > €50k → the case takes “Correct a rejected row” in 30.4% of cases (baseline 14.7%, lift 2.07×, n = 37).
30.4% confidence 14.7% baseline 2.07× lift n = 37
When channel = PDF email AND vat_code = S10 → the case takes “Request the missing purchase order” in 35.7% of cases (baseline 10.3%, lift 3.47×, n = 19).
35.7% confidence 10.3% baseline 3.47× lift n = 19
When vat_code = S10 AND amount_band = > €50k → the case takes “Obtain a second approval” in 39.1% of cases (baseline 11.2%, lift 3.49×, n = 8).
39.1% confidence 11.2% baseline 3.49× lift n = 8
When supplier_country = DE AND channel = Supplier portal → the case takes “Obtain a second approval” in 31% of cases (baseline 11.2%, lift 2.77×, n = 9).
31% confidence 11.2% baseline 2.77× lift n = 9
When line_items > 33 AND shift = Afternoon → the case takes “Correct a rejected row” in 43.3% of cases (baseline 14.7%, lift 2.95×, n = 8).
43.3% confidence 14.7% baseline 2.95× lift n = 8

Decision point

Pick an exclusive choice in the map to see its branch shares and the attributes that discriminate between them.

Decision point

Branch

Read the invoice line items215 · 68.9%
Correct a rejected row44 · 14.1%
Obtain a second approval25 · 8%
Request the missing purchase order16 · 5.1%

Pick an exclusive choice in the map to see its branch shares and the attributes that discriminate between them.

Conformance against the reference model

Reference model v3, 20 Jun 2026

Fitness0.89

Precision0.74

Fitness and precision trade off; we report both rather than a single model-quality score.

Conforming cases — 112 (35.9%) Non-conforming — 200 (64.1%)

Deviations by type

A deviation is not necessarily an error — it is behaviour the reference model does not allow.

					Breaks conformance
Invalid activity	155	49.7%	2m 25s	6.2 h	Breaks conformance
Activity retry	102	32.7%	1m 44s	2.9 h	—
Skip	113	36.2%	57s	1.8 h	Breaks conformance
Loop back	26	8.3%	2m 14s	58m 04s	—
Exclusive-choice violation	29	9.3%	1m 40s	48m 20s	Breaks conformance
Invalid start/end	17	5.4%	0s	0s	Breaks conformance

Conforming cases over the window

Conforming cases (%) · 16 Jun – 13 Jul 2026

Conforming cases (%)16 Jun – 13 Jul 2026

Rework and loops

Self-loops and loop-backs, with loop inflow, outflow and net gain.

Activity	Kind	Self-loops	Cases affected	Mean repeats	Loop in	Loop out	Net gain	Total waiting
Read the invoice line items	Loop back	0	44	2×	44	45	-1	33.6 h
Match against the purchase order	Loop back	0	30	2×	30	25	+5	15.6 h
Check for a duplicate invoice	Self-loop	28	28	2×	28	26	+2	3.3 h
Apply the cost centre	Self-loop	71	24	3.96×	71	74	-3	3.7 h
Read the invoice line items	Loop back	0	24	2×	24	21	+3	18.1 h
Key the entry into the ERP	Self-loop	22	22	2×	22	22	0	3.2 h
Match against the purchase order	Loop back	0	17	2×	17	16	+1	5.3 h
Open workbook	Loop back	0	16	2×	16	12	+4	5 h

Rework cost €2,948–4,422 · 56 cases · 147 h Costed at the €25/h loaded rate used everywhere in this dashboard.

Cases

Showing 16 of a 40-case sample drawn from 312 cases, across the 24 variants listed on the Variants tab. The totals above are exact; this table is sampled.

Variant				Roles	Departments		Conformance
V-07	2026-07-13 12:31:27	4 h	13	AP SpecialistFinancial Controller	financeops	1	Deviating
V-01	2026-07-13 11:16:23	69m 10s	12	AP SpecialistFinancial Controller	finance	0	Conforming
V-19	2026-07-13 10:00:14	2.8 h	13	AP SpecialistOperations Lead	financeops	1	Deviating
V-04	2026-07-13 08:48:06	2 h	16	Financial ControllerBack-Office Clerk	financebackoffice	3	Deviating
V-13	2026-07-09 11:58:42	2.4 h	13	AP SpecialistOperations Lead	financebackoffice	0	Deviating
V-11	2026-07-09 10:44:00	3.1 h	13	Financial ControllerBack-Office Clerk	finance	1	Conforming
V-01	2026-07-09 09:27:40	73m 48s	12	Back-Office ClerkAP Specialist	financebackoffice	0	Conforming
V-10	2026-07-06 08:44:28	5.5 h	14	Operations Lead	financebackoffice	1	Deviating
V-18	2026-07-03 16:15:05	2.8 h	12	AP SpecialistBack-Office Clerk	financeops	0	Deviating
V-03	2026-07-03 11:00:21	8.5 h	12	Back-Office ClerkAP Specialist	financebackoffice	0	Deviating
V-05	2026-07-03 09:56:51	8.4 h	14	Back-Office ClerkOperations Lead	finance	1	Deviating
V-03	2026-07-03 09:50:58	8 h	12	Operations AnalystFinancial Controller	finance	0	Deviating
V-02	2026-06-30 12:07:45	74m 45s	12	Back-Office ClerkOperations Analyst	finance	0	Deviating
V-20	2026-06-30 12:05:40	81m 33s	13	Operations Analyst	financeops	0	Deviating
V-01	2026-06-30 10:21:58	2.5 h	12	AP Specialist	financeops	0	Conforming
V-03	2026-06-30 08:59:12	1.9 h	12	Financial ControllerBack-Office Clerk	finance	0	Deviating

16 of 40

Live 96% confidence

Automation design

The Map tab is what the event log shows. This is the automation you are designing from it.

ExcelERP clientOutlook

11.4h reclaimed / week across everyone who runs it

Case V-01 Conforming

—

· Process: Invoice re-keying (Excel → ERP) · Correlation key invoice_no

Total duration

Working Waiting Steps · Rework

Field	Value
`invoice_no`	INV-2026-81544
`supplier`	Brightline Media Srl
`amount_eur`	€33,193.85
`cost_centre`	CC-2370
`vat_code`	S7
`iban`	ES•• •••• •••• •••• 5039 · masked at capture (IBAN masked at capture)

Field	Value
`invoice_no`	INV-2026-88695
`supplier`	Atlas Papeleria SA
`amount_eur`	€23,707.76
`cost_centre`	CC-1460
`vat_code`	S4
`iban`	ES•• •••• •••• •••• 4023 · masked at capture (IBAN masked at capture)

Field	Value
`invoice_no`	INV-2026-59891
`supplier`	Vallcarca Tecnics SL
`amount_eur`	€39,538.77
`cost_centre`	CC-4525
`vat_code`	S14
`iban`	ES•• •••• •••• •••• 4431 · masked at capture (IBAN masked at capture)