Evidence trail
Findings are stronger when the report shows the clause, statement line, and calculation path behind the issue.
Problem
Clients and landlords do not act on vague claims that a charge looks wrong. Partners need to point to the lease clause, statement line item, relevant amount, and reason the charge conflicts with the contract. Without that evidence trail, every finding becomes a manual research project.
Solution
CAMAudit carries source references from extraction into the audit output. Partners can review the relevant lease language, statement amounts, and explanation before deciding how to present the finding to the client.
Proof points
Findings can include lease clause references when the source data supports them.
Statement references connect disputed dollars to reconciliation amounts.
Explanations distinguish confirmed math issues from review questions.
Evidence context supports the branded report and dispute letter draft.
Workflow
01
Extraction keeps the relevant source context attached to fields used by the audit.
02
The detection output explains why the clause and statement amount matter.
03
Partners decide which evidence-backed findings are ready for the client package.
Related feature pages
Partners publish client-facing audit packages that carry their own brand and explain the recovery case.
When findings support action, partners can prepare a dispute letter draft grounded in the reviewed audit record.
Partners control what clients see, when reports are published, and how findings are positioned.
Related guides and tools
FAQ
No. Some findings are direct math checks with clear inputs. Others depend on classification or ambiguous language. The report separates those situations so partners can calibrate delivery.
Evidence narrows the conversation to the clause, amount, and calculation. That is more productive than asking the landlord to review the whole reconciliation from scratch.
Next step
