Before choosing a tool
The notary and staff assess documents and approve the file. Deeds, identity checks and statutory deadlines are not delegated to autonomous decisions.
Industry assessment ↗
← All examples
Notaries
Complete files before the critical stages.
An 18-person practice repeatedly follows up for documents. Name and version inconsistencies are discovered late.
These cases show how we would apply our method to different professional situations. Business profiles, countries, timelines and gains are illustrative assumptions. They do not describe completed client engagements.
Illustrative audit · 4 pages · no registration
- Simulated schedule
- 9 weeks
- Support planned in the scenario
- 10 consulting days
- Simulated net time saving
- 18 h / month
Assumed internal commitment : 6 person-days. Consulting days are spread across the schedule and do not mean full-time attendance. Internal days are additional. Scope and a quote must be agreed for a real engagement.
01 / Proposed audit scope
Notarial practice
Administrative completeness for one file type, without automated authentication or legal validation.
What we would examine
25 redacted files, a practice-approved document checklist and follow-up history.
02 / The process, department by department
| Department | Simulated starting point | Proposed process | Human approval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administration | Track documents in multiple lists | One checklist with statuses and sources | Practice administrator |
| Professional practice | Discover discrepancies late | Flag inconsistencies before file review | Notary |
| Client relations | Write each follow-up individually | Draft follow-up for approval | File manager |
The approach to compare
Field extraction and rule checks against an approved checklist. AI suggests matches; discrepancies are held for review.
What stays with the professional
The notary and staff assess documents and approve the file. Deeds, identity checks and statutory deadlines are not delegated to autonomous decisions.
03 / From audit to an independent team
9 weeks.
10 consulting days.
A simulated engagement timeline, with a decision and deliverable at every stage. Rollout depends on test results.
Week 1 · 2 consulting days
Observe & measure
25 redacted files, a practice-approved document checklist and follow-up history.
Proposed deliverable Process map, baseline measurement and issue register.
Week 2 · 1.5 consulting days
Scope & decide
Compare simplification, existing features and AI. Define scope, access, full costs and stop criteria before building.
Proposed deliverable Audit report, priority matrix and test protocol.
Weeks 3–6 · 3 consulting days
Prototype
Field extraction and rule checks against an approved checklist. AI suggests matches; discrepancies are held for review.
Proposed deliverable Limited prototype, test set and approval workflow.
Weeks 7–8 · 2.5 consulting days
Test & decide
Every missing mandatory item remains blocking; each extracted value links to its source document.
Proposed deliverable Comparative assessment: proceed, adjust or stop.
Week 9 · 1 consulting days
Train & hand over
Train users on routine and exceptional cases. Appoint an owner and document the manual fallback. If testing fails, hand over findings and a correction plan.
Proposed deliverable Usage guide, team workshop and 30-day follow-up plan.
04 / What the scenario aims to achieve
Simulated net time saving
18 h / monthFewer scattered follow-ups and clearer visibility of files needing preparation.
- Assumed monthly volume
- 40 file checks
- Baseline time per unit
- 75 min
- Target time, including human review
- 45 min
- Monthly monitoring and maintenance
- 2 h
Transparent calculation
40 × (75 − 45) ÷ 60 − 2 = 18 h / month
Volume × (baseline time − target time) ÷ 60 − monthly monitoring.
If only half the volume benefits from the process, with the same monthly monitoring: 8 h / month
This calculation is a simulation, not a client measurement. Target time includes corrections and review. Time released is not a demonstrated cash saving; it depends on actual volume and adoption.
Costs to compare with the benefit
Cost advice, data preparation, integration, licences, training and maintenance before committing. Price, return on investment and revenue effects must be established for each engagement.
How we would verify the result
Compare both methods on a set separate from preparation examples. Measure total time, corrections, critical errors and actual use. Keep difficult cases in the assessment; suspend if quality or confidentiality deteriorates.
Professional acceptance criterion : Every missing mandatory item remains blocking; each extracted value links to its source document.
After the pilot
During the 30 days after an approved pilot: review metrics weekly, examine exceptions and decide whether to maintain, correct or expand the scope. This follow-up period is outside the scenario schedule and consulting days.
Before a pilot, define permitted data, access and any supplier reuse. Country-specific and professional rules must be checked for the real engagement.
Background reference: CNIL, using a generative AI system.Does this sound like your organisation?
Start with your reality: a time-consuming process, your current tools and the people involved. We can assess whether a similar approach makes sense for you.