The production layer for enterprise AI
Know what your AI can safely automate.
Build business capabilities, not just AI workflows. Corda proves what your AI can be trusted to do on real business cases, then carries it into production.
Corda shows where your AI performs reliably, where it fails, and where humans should stay involved, so your team can move from pilot to production with evidence.
Keep your existing AI stack. Start with one workflow. No production write access.
| Criterion | Finance team | AI workflow | Requirement | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approval‑rule violations | 0.15% | 0.09% | ≤ 0.20% | Pass |
| Cases requiring review | 23% | 14% | ≤ 20% | Pass |
| Cost per invoice | $6.40 | $0.72 | ≤ $1.00 | Pass |
| Average review time | 12.4 minm | 38 secs | ≤ 60 sec | Pass |
Routine invoices passed. Higher‑risk and policy‑exception cases remain under human review.
Keep your AI stack. Add the layer that gets it production-ready
- OpenAI
- Claude
- Copilot
- n8n
- Workato
- LangGraph
- UiPath
- Internal Agents
The demo worked.
Production is where it gets difficult.
Before AI touches customers, money, contracts, or production systems, “it seems to work” isn’t enough.
Your team needs evidence.
Does it actually perform better?
Compare AI with the people and processes handling the same work today.
Where does it get things wrong?
Find the cases, conditions, and edge cases where AI still struggles.
When should a human step in?
Keep people in control where judgment, risk, or uncertainty demands it.
Is automation actually worth it?
Measure whether AI reduces cost, saves time, and improves the outcome that matters.
Corda turns “we think it’s ready” into evidence your team can act on.
The scarce resource was never AI agents.
It is production grade business capability.
No board has ever asked how many agents a company runs. They ask whether it can reliably resolve an invoice exception, investigate a dispute, reconcile a payment, close a support case, remediate an incident, review a contract. That is the unit of value, and it is bigger than a model call.
Every layer above the first is the part that decides whether the thing survives contact with a real customer. Corda is the system of record for all eight.
One workflow. Real cases. A clear path to production.
Connect a workflow you’ve already built. Corda helps you determine what it’s ready to handle, and what it isn’t.
- Evaluate
- Shadow
- Deploy
-
01Evaluate
Test AI on work you’ve already done.
Run your AI workflow against historical cases and compare its output with what actually happened.
Replaying past cases76.9%3,847 completed 127 failed 1,026 queuedMeasured on 5,420 cases your team already closedAccuracy97.3%Cost per case$0.72Processing time38sExceptions14%Human disagreement2.7%Business outcome+$5.68 / caseDon’t benchmark AI in a lab. Benchmark it against your business.
-
Shadow
Let it work beside your team before it works instead of them.
Run AI alongside your existing process without letting it change the real outcome.
See where it agrees with your team, where it fails, and which cases still need human judgment.
How responsibility moves- Observe
- Recommend
- Human approval
- Automate
AI earns responsibility through performance, not assumptions.
02 -
03Deploy
Automate what works. Keep humans where they matter.
Once performance is proven, automate the cases AI handles reliably and route the rest to people.
Running in productionInvoice Exception Handling V4- Automation rate76%
- Human review24%
- Accuracy97.4%
- Cost per case$0.78
- Cycle time41s
- Failures0.08% critical
- Business impact$409K / year
- Illustrativeexample evaluation, not a customer result
As the evidence improves, the amount of work AI can safely handle grows with it.
The only comparison that settles the argument.
Not the model against a benchmark. Your workflow against the people doing the job right now, on the same cases, judged by the same standard.
| Metric | Human baseline | Corda measured AI | Requirement | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolution accuracy | 96.1% | 97.3%↑ 1.2 pp | ≥ 96% | Pass |
| Critical error rate | 0.15% | 0.09%↓ 0.06 pp | ≤ 0.2% | Pass |
| Escalation rate | 23% | 14%↓ 9 pp | ≤ 20% | Pass |
| Cost per case | $6.40 | $0.72↓ $5.68 | ≤ $1.00 | Pass |
| Average handle time | 12.4m | 38s↓ 11.8 min | ≤ 60s | Pass |
Deterministic first
Escalation matches. Category matches. Refund lands within tolerance. Required fields present. Prohibited action never taken. Wherever a right answer exists, Corda checks it exactly and does not ask a model for an opinion.
Business outcome second
Did the ticket reopen. Did it escalate. Was the refund approved. Did the case actually close. These come from the outcome your systems already recorded, which is the only ground truth your CFO will accept.
Model judgement last
Tone, completeness, policy adherence and response quality get an LLM judge because nothing else can read them. It is never the sole check on a high risk metric, and Corda will not let you configure it that way.
A score tells you how it performed.The failures tell you what to fix.
97.3% accuracy sounds production ready. The 142 cases it got wrong tell a different story.
Corda groups failures by cause, so your team can see where the workflow breaks, what creates business risk, and what needs to improve before you automate more.
142 cases need attention before you automate more
out of 5,420 · one mark, one case · illustrative dataset
47
PO terms misread
34
Missing account context
26
Duplicate invoice missed
19
Approval required
11
Policy exception
5
Other
11 cases violated an approval rule. Low frequency, high consequence. These cases should stay with a human before broader automation.
Why this case needs a human
Case 4471enterprise account$240K invoiceUnited States
Invoice amount exceeds the customer’s contracted threshold. A matching PO exists, but the requested adjustment requires Finance approval.
- Your team
- AI workflow
- invoice match
- matched
- matched
- PO verified
- yes
- yes
- exception detected
- yes
- no
- finance approval
- required
- not requested
- decision
- escalate
- approve
Every other check passed. This one didn’t, and it changed the decision.
The workflow matched the invoice correctly but missed the approval requirement. This class of case should remain with Finance.
Prove the next version is actually better.
You changed the prompt, added a retrieval step and swapped the model. Something got better. Something else probably got worse. Corda shows you the trade instead of hiding it inside one number.
| Metric | V2 | V3 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolution accuracy | 94.8% | 97.3% | +2.5 pp |
| Critical error rate | 0.40% | 0.09% | −0.31 pp |
| Escalation rate | 22% | 14% | −8 pp |
| Cost per case | $0.63 | $0.72 | +$0.09 |
| Average latency | 32s | 38s | +6s |
Read it honestly. V3 buys 2.5 points of accuracy and cuts critical errors by three quarters, and it pays for that with nine cents and six seconds per case. At 10,000 cases a month the trade costs $900 and turns roughly 250 wrong answers into right ones, 31 of which would have been critical. Now it is a business decision, which is where it belonged all along.
Automate more only when the evidence says you should.
No workflow should go from prototype to fully automated overnight.
Corda expands automation in stages: observe, recommend, approve, then automate the cases that have proven safe. Routine invoices move faster. Exceptions stay with your team.
if po_match = true
and vendor_status = "approved"
and invoice_amount < $10,000
and policy_exception = false
automate
if invoice_amount ≥ $10,000
or policy_exception = true
require finance approval
if duplicate_invoice = true
or vendor_status = "blocked"
stopTwo questions per invoice: has this workflow handled cases like it, and should this one be automated now?
The boundary widens only as the evidence improves.
Test it on real invoices.
Without touching a real payment.
Corda evaluates your AI workflow against historical invoice cases in a controlled environment. The workflow can analyze the case, propose a decision, and explain what it would do, but it cannot approve an invoice, trigger a payment, or update a live financial record.
Your team gets production-relevant evidence without putting customers, cash, or accounting systems at risk.
Your data stays under your control.
- Encrypted in transit and at rest
- Isolated across customer environments
- Credentials are never displayed after setup
- Delete evaluations and datasets when you choose
- Evaluation access is permission controlled
- Your data is never used to train Corda or third-party models
Corda is currently working with Design Partners and is not yet claiming enterprise certifications we have not earned.
Security requirements such as SOC 2, SSO, SCIM, configurable retention, and deployment options are part of our enterprise roadmap. For Design Partners, we’ll discuss your requirements upfront before connecting any production system.
Every proven capability becomes the next team's starting line.
When a workflow performs consistently, Corda certifies it and files it. The next team looking for the same capability finds what already exists, what it scores, who owns it, and whether they can deploy it too.
This is the compounding part. Your first evaluation costs you a week. Your fifteenth costs you an afternoon, because the metrics, the thresholds, the failure taxonomy and the review boundaries were all learned once and written down.
| Capability | Owner | Version | Accuracy | Automation | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer Escalation Resolution | Customer Ops | V4 | 97.4% | 76% | Production |
| Ticket Classification | Support | V7 | 99.1% | 94% | Production |
| Subscription Cancellation | Retention | V2 | 94.8% | 61% | Shadow |
| Invoice Exception Resolution | Finance Ops | V3 | 96.2% | 58% | Shadow |
| Payment Reconciliation | Finance Ops | V1 | 91.0% | n/a | Evaluating |
| Lead Qualification | Revenue Ops | V2 | 88.4% | n/a | Not ready |
- More workflows
- More evaluations
- More execution data
- Sharper failure taxonomy
- Better workflows
- More deployments
- More proven capabilities
- More reuse
Run this long enough and Corda can tell you something no dashboard can. Your escalation workflow sits in the 42nd percentile against comparable deployments, and here is what the ones above you did differently.
Observability tells you what happened.
Corda helps you decide what AI should handle.
Your existing AI tools are built to understand models and agents. Corda focuses on the business process those systems are being asked to perform.
- Models
- Prompts
- Traces
- Tokens
- Latency
- Technical failures
- AI vs. human performance
- Cases that need review
- Failure patterns
- Automation boundaries
- Cost per case
- Business outcomes
The question isn’t whether your agent can run. It’s whether you can trust it with the work.
Keep your AI stack. Corda becomes the production layer.
Corda works with the workflows your teams already have, so you can improve how AI reaches production without rebuilding how you create it.
Corda does not replace anything above it or below it. It is the layer that decides what is allowed to reach the bottom row without a person.
From AI pilot to production-readiness
- Compare AI vs human baseline
- Measure accuracy, review rate, and cost
- Detect policy violations and failure modes
- Define safe vs uncertain case boundaries
- Recommend autonomy level
Corda proves which cases are safe to automate before production write access.
Models will change. Frameworks will change. Your standard for trusting AI with real work shouldn’t.
Pick work where getting it wrong actually matters.
Corda is most valuable when AI is moving from assisting people to making or executing real business decisions.
Invoice exceptions
AI can process the obvious cases. Corda helps you prove which cases are actually obvious, and route the rest to your finance team.
Disputes & support decisions
Test AI against past cases, identify where it performs reliably, and automate routine decisions without losing human judgment on exceptions.
Incident remediation
See how an AI workflow would respond to real incidents before allowing it to make changes to production systems.
Contract review
Compare AI recommendations with previous reviews and keep people involved when risk, value, or uncertainty crosses your threshold.
Different workflows. Same question: what can AI safely handle?
Not another AI score.
A production decision your team can act on.
Corda turns historical cases from one workflow into a production readiness report: where the workflow performs, where it breaks, which cases can be automated, and where human review should stay.
AI, operations, finance, and risk leaders read the same evidence and decide what goes live now, what needs guardrails, and what should wait.
Invoice Exception Handling V3
Illustrative dataset6,840 historical cases evaluatedFinance OperationsOwner: A. Chen
- 41 Missing PO context
- 33 Vendor policy mismatch
- 24 Duplicate invoice confusion
- 18 Incorrect exception coding
- 9 Escalated unnecessarily
- Auto handleLow risk exceptions, complete documentation, invoices under $1,000
- Human reviewNew vendors, missing fields, exceptions over threshold
- ExcludeSuspected fraud, legal disputes, high value payments
Corda Design Partners
Bring us one AI workflow you’re serious about putting into production.
You work directly with the founding team on one workflow. We take three design partners at a time, because depth beats a list of logos and two people cannot do more than that properly.
What you get
-
01
Benchmark it
We replay your historical cases through the workflow you already have and score every decision against what your team actually did. No rebuild, no change to your AI stack.
-
02
Find the boundary
Three buckets, named and defended: which cases it can automate, which need approval, and which must escalate. Plus the failure modes standing between you and production.
-
03
Run it in shadow
Once the history holds up, the workflow runs on live cases with no production write access, so you see how it behaves on work nobody has decided yet before it decides anything.
Who this is for
A strong Design Partner already has:
- A custom AI workflow already built, in pilot or under manual review
- An invoice, AP exception, coding or reconciliation process it is meant to handle
- 200 or more historical cases you can export within two weeks
- A named owner with 45 minutes a week
- A real ship, do not ship, or escalate decision this quarter
- Security that can move on an NDA and read only access
If one of those six is missing you are probably a later customer than a design partner, and we would rather say so now.
You don’t need dozens of agents.
You don’t need to change your AI stack.
You need one workflow worth getting right.
What we need from you
- The 200 or more historical cases, with the outcome your team recorded
- An HTTP endpoint for the workflow, or an export we can replay against
- 45 minutes a week with the person who owns the process
- An honest answer at week eight on whether the evidence changed your decision
Tell us about the workflow you’re trying to put into production. If the historical cases are already somewhere we can read, say where.