AI extraction quality control checklist
Set a quality-control standard for AI extraction before extracted lease text or CAM statement data reaches partner review.
Use this as an operating worksheet before the firm commits to a tool, build path, or client workflow. The partner should be able to see who owns intake, what evidence is required, what reaches the client, and what stays in internal review.
Evaluation worksheet
Copy this table into the vendor review, implementation brief, or internal operating file. Fill it with proof from a real lease review, not a sales demo.
| Area | What to verify | Gap found | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source page | every extracted value points to a page or statement line | ||
| Text capture | clause wording is preserved enough for review | ||
| Confidence issue | poor scan quality or unclear amendments are flagged | ||
| Reviewer correction | edits are saved with owner and reason | ||
| Final state | accepted, revised, held, or closed |
A pass means the firm can prove the control in a real file. A gap needs an owner, a process step, or a direct vendor answer before the workflow is trusted.
Questions to ask
- Can a reviewer open the exact page behind an extracted value?
- Can the system show what changed after human review?
- Can unclear source text stop a finding from reaching a client?
- Can math checks avoid model-generated calculations?
- Can the partner sign off on the final value set?
Review standard
Extraction quality is not about a clean text block. A second reviewer must be able to open the source page and check the value. Poor scan quality should not drive a finding.
Use one messy file for the test. Include an amendment, a scanned statement, and a value that needs correction. If the system cannot preserve the correction trail, it is not ready for partner-led review.
Red flags
- Extracted values appear without page or statement references.
- Low-confidence source text flows into findings without a hold state.
- Corrections overwrite the original value without an audit trail.
- The tool performs math from model text instead of reviewed data.
- Reviewers cannot tell which amendment controlled the final value.
CAMAudit fit
CAMAudit can run behind the partner as a partner-branded CAM audit engine. It helps structure intake, source citations, findings, reviewer notes, and report output. The partner decides what is client-ready and signs off before delivery.
Related partner resources
Use CPA service line checklist when the software decision also changes staffing or pricing.
Use lease admin intake workflow when the source packet is still messy.
Use partner review QA rubric when the firm needs a signoff gate.
Use workpaper folder SOP when the tool needs cleaner document intake.
Use white-label delivery checklist when output needs to be client-ready under the partner brand.
Implementation review note
Run one controlled file through the workflow before rollout. The test file should include a lease, amendment, CAM statement, backup request, approved item, rejected item, reviewer note, and final export. That small run shows whether the tool keeps source support attached or merely creates a cleaner-looking queue.
Record who owns intake, who can edit draft findings, who approves client wording, and who can export the final packet. If those roles are vague, software will move work faster while making review harder. The partner should be able to open the file later and see why an item was kept, revised, or closed.
Archive rule
Save the final packet with the lease year, client site, reviewer, and open questions. If the client returns next year, the firm should see which clauses mattered, which backup was requested, and which issues were closed because support was weak. That archive is part of the service, not an afterthought.
Rollout notes for the partner
Start with a messy client file. A clean demo will hide real workflow gaps. Test missing amendments, unclear lines, poor scans, and duplicate files. Include one issue the partner keeps and one they close.
Write the review rule before staff use the system. The rule should name who can create a draft finding, who can change client-facing wording, who can ask the landlord for backup, who can route a question to counsel, and who can mark the item closed. If those roles are not written down, the tool will create more messages instead of more capacity.
Track time on the first few files. Record minutes spent on intake, source cleanup, reviewer edits, partner signoff, and client readout. The partner needs that data to price the service line and to decide whether small-dollar leases can be served profitably. A workflow that saves extraction time but adds partner review confusion is not an improvement.
Keep internal and client notes separate. Internal notes can flag unclear text, missing backup, or a need for counsel. Client copy should say what was checked and what is still open. It should also state the firm's next step.
Use CAMAudit after the firm has named the offer, scope, owner, and delivery path. It can help prepare a cited packet for AI extraction quality control checklist, but the firm still controls the paid engagement. That is the value of a partner-led model: the client gets software speed with professional review and signoff from the firm they already trust.
What to measure after launch
Review the first five files as a small operations sample. Count how many files were accepted, declined, sent back for missing documents, routed to counsel, or delivered to the client. Also count how many draft findings were removed by the partner. Removed findings are not a failure. They show that the review gate is working.
The partner should also watch handoff quality. A good handoff lets a second reviewer open the file and understand the source trail in a few minutes. A weak handoff forces the reviewer to ask staff what happened. If handoffs are weak, fix naming, folder structure, status labels, and source citation before adding more volume.
Finally, check whether the workflow creates a repeatable next-year file. The archive should show the lease year, documents used, findings sent, items held back, backup requested, and next review date. If the archive is clear, the firm can turn annual reconciliations into recurring advisory work instead of one-off cleanups.
For the next review cycle, add one short note about whether this workflow protected partner review time. If it did not, the partner should simplify the status labels, tighten the intake packet, or narrow the scope before adding more files.