Writing

The Decision Framework: When to Use AI for Reconciliation

Not every reconciliation task is a good candidate for a large language model, and the enterprise teams who get this right make that call explicitly, workflow by workflow, rather than assuming AI should touch everything or nothing.

Good AI candidates: semantic and unstructured

AI earns its place wherever the task requires judgment about meaning, not just matching:

Every one of these shares a property: a human doing it by hand is using judgment, not just following a rule. That's the signal.

Better solved deterministically: rigid and exact

AI is the wrong tool, and a genuinely worse one, for anything that already has one correct answer:

Handing these to an AI model doesn't make them more capable. It makes them slower, harder to audit, and occasionally wrong in ways a spreadsheet formula never would be, because you've introduced probabilistic reasoning into a place that only ever needed arithmetic.

Why the split matters more than the model

This is the single most consequential design decision in an AI reconciliation system, and it's made once, up front, rather than left to the model to figure out per request.

The pattern to hold onto: AI handles the matching, the fuzzy comparison, the semantic judgment call. Deterministic code handles the math, the validation, the final numbers that go in a report someone will be held accountable for. Neither replaces the other. The architecture that actually implements this split is a defined pipeline, not a single prompt asking an AI to do everything at once, which is exactly where the next piece in this series picks up.


Adapted from the full white paper on designing AI reconciliation systems. Download the PDF.


Rosemarie Withee has spent thirteen years helping operations teams get real work out of their software, first Microsoft 365, now AI. She's written six books for Wiley and builds AI products at Portal Integrators.