Every file waits for the same few people.
Documents arrive in pieces. Someone chases the bank statement. A junior spots a difference and mentions it in an email. The manager finds it again two weeks later. The partner sees the file the night before it’s due.
Readiness nobody can see
Which documents are in, which are missing, and which were uploaded but never looked at.
Checks that depend on who’s checking
Whether the notes tie back to the statements, whether the bank agrees with the books. Done carefully by some people, skipped under pressure by others.
Issues that live in email
A mismatch is found, discussed and maybe resolved. But nobody can show who decided what, based on which evidence.
Generic AI doesn’t fix it
Ask a chat tool to “review these financials” and you get a well-written paragraph. Someone still has to check it, organize it, assign it and remember it.
After every step, ask: what changed in the system?
With a chat tool, the answer is nothing. You got some text. With Bleno, the work moves to its next state.
Produces text
- You supply the prompt and the context
- The AI writes observations
- You check, organize and assign them by hand
- Nothing is formally completed, approved or published
Produces finished, reviewed work
- A command opens a piece of work that stays open until it’s done
- Named checks create findings you can trace
- Each finding gets an owner, evidence and a review status
- The approved result is versioned and deliberately shared
Three kinds of work, running as Bleno workflows.
Do the two sides agree, and if not, why?
Bank, ledger and supporting records compared line by line. Every difference becomes a finding with the values compared, an owner and a next step, instead of a highlighted cell in a spreadsheet.
A systematic review, every time
Totals, internal consistency, links between statements and notes, and last year’s closing figures against this year’s opening ones. Then the disclosures your firm expects for that kind of entity.
From documents to a reviewed return
The inputs gathered and checked for gaps, the figures traced back to their sources, and questions that need a professional’s judgment sent to the right person before anything is filed.
All three are live on finance.bleno.io, so you can see exactly how they work before you talk to us.
Try themOne journey: start, get ready, check, resolve, approve.
- 01
Start
“Start year-end for ABC Ltd.” Bleno captures the client, period and team, loads your checklist, sets owners and due dates, and drafts the information request.
- 02
Check readiness
Which required documents are present, missing, unreadable or duplicated. Items marked done with no evidence. Requests that are overdue.
- 03
Run the checks
Named checks on the reconciliation, statements or return. Every issue becomes a finding with its source, values, rule, owner and next step.
- 04
Resolve
Each finding moves from found to assigned, evidence requested, analyzed, reviewed and concluded. It can be reopened, and compared across versions.
- 05
Approve and share
The manager or partner gets a review pack. You choose exactly what the client sees, and it’s shared only after explicit approval.
Upload a revised draft and Bleno shows what’s resolved, what’s still open and what’s new, with the full reasoning behind every closed finding still attached.
Three kinds of check, and a clear line between them.
Bleno checks these itself
- Totals add up and the balance sheet balances
- Statements agree with the notes
- Opening figures match last year’s closing figures
- Reconciling items are explained
- Missing notes, broken references and inconsistent captions
Checks you set up
The disclosures and requirements your firm expects for each kind of client. The checklist is yours, versioned, and agreed by your professionals.
Sent to a person
Where applicability, materiality, evidence or treatment has to be assessed, Bleno doesn’t decide. It routes the question to the right professional.
| Bleno says | Bleno never says |
|---|---|
| “Expected disclosure not found.” | “The financial statements comply.” |
| “Two submitted values don’t agree.” | “The evidence is sufficient.” |
| “Professional review is required.” | “The accounting treatment is correct.” |
What Specific AI for finance is not.
It’s not an automated audit opinion, an accounting certification, or a replacement for professional judgment.
Nothing moves without the right person
Every judgment and every client-facing result goes through the approval step you set by role.
Nothing is visible just because it exists
Drafts, internal discussion and working papers stay private unless someone deliberately selects and approves them.
Every flag can be explained
No finding exists without a visible reason: the rule, the source document, the version and the values compared.
The work picks up where you left it
Close it on Friday, open it on Tuesday. The state, owners and history are all still there.
Help shape Specific AI for finance around how your firm works.
We’re working with a small number of accounting firms and finance teams to build in their own checklists, review steps and quality standards.