Pick a task with clear inputs, rules and a person responsible for the outcome. Use an evaluation to compare the total time spent on the task, including review and corrections.
Beyond invoice review: watch Finance and Operations compare a staffing plan.
Follow the same file from reading to review. Marcus spots the wrong buyer, rejects the request and asks for a corrected invoice.
A submitted document names Acme Corporation as buyer, while the reviewer works in Northstar.
Marcus enters the buyer-mismatch reason; the later saved state confirms the decision.
This is a document review, not a payment or mailbox-intake demonstration. Other requests visible in the background are separate cases.
Fictional demonstration. Screenshot walkthrough; saved-record views are labelled.
Download captions (VTT) · Download subtitles (SRT) · Download transcript
When an invoice needs more evidence, give the next person a clear summary of the issue and what is still needed.
In this separate workspace example, Sofia asks her agent to review supplied invoice facts. She checks its summary and shares it with Marcus, the CFO. He asks her to obtain the receiving record and freight authorisation before his payment decision.
The shared topic retains their discussion and Sofia’s follow-up.
Watch the Finance conversation · 55 sec →Fictional supplied-facts discussion. Separate from the submitted-invoice rejection above; no payment is approved or made.
Explore the recorded finance work, HR summary and employee offboarding below. Other examples are starting points to configure and test with your team.
The same questions apply across teams: which method should the agent follow, what information may it use, and who reviews the result?
Identify missing purchase-order references, preserve the invoice evidence and prepare a recommendation for review.
A submitted invoice is read and rejected for the wrong buyer. Separate examples show extraction and a missing purchase-order reference. No payment is made.
Watch the example →Turn supplied onboarding facts into a summary of what is ready, what is pending and who needs to follow up.
The example below uses a shared procedure and includes the actual answer and administrative review. It prepares a summary; it does not carry out onboarding or decide HR policy.
Read the onboarding handover example →Summarize available incident details, suggest a priority and identify the team that should review it.
An example to evaluate with your ticketing system. The demo library does not establish an end-to-end incident workflow.
Discuss this use case →Gather the invoice and order references, highlight missing evidence and ask the responsible person to resolve it.
The recorded invoice case shows a missing purchase-order match. Automatic purchasing or supplier approval is not demonstrated.
Inspect the invoice evidence →Draft a quote using approved product and pricing information, then route it for the required sign-off.
An example to configure and test with your sales system; no completed quote workflow is shown in the recordings.
Discuss this use case →Use approved guidance to draft a reply and flag questions that need a specialist.
An example to evaluate with your support system. Customer-facing actions need explicit permissions and testing.
Discuss this use case →A shared procedure turns supplied onboarding facts into a handover. A reviewer catches a missing owner label before approving the revised document.
Case NS-HR-ONB-001 · Start date: 14 September 2026
Exact Ready and Pending sections from Avery’s reviewed editorial revision.
Review: Daniel requested the missing-owner label. Avery added “Owner: not supplied.”; Daniel checked and approved that revision. The AI was not run again.
Separate fictional example: one operator used two administrator accounts. This demonstrates document review, not ordinary HR-member access, independent human reviewers or completed onboarding.
Case NS-HR-ONB-001
New hire: Jordan Vale
Start date: 14 September 2026
Welcome session: scheduled for 09:30 with Owen Kessler.
Laptop allocation: confirmed.
Account activation: pending. Owner: Maya Tan.
Security training: not yet booked. Owner: Owen Kessler (owns follow-up).
Manager check-in time: not supplied.
Daniel Okafor is the requested administrative reviewer of this fictional HR handover; no review decision has yet been recorded. This is a fictional onboarding handover only. Do not claim hiring approval, policy approval, completed onboarding, payroll changes, account activation or completed training. Do not use tools, contact anyone, or change any business record.
Original generated answer, preserved unchanged. “No review decision” describes generation time. Daniel requested the missing-owner label and later approved Avery’s editorial revision. The revised document was not published within Aegis. These are administrative document decisions, not hiring, policy, access, payroll or onboarding approvals.
Shared procedure · Supplied facts · Unchanged answer · Reviewed editorial revision
Discuss an HR task and its review requirements →See what changed, what had nothing to change and who supervises the vacant role. Keep a clear record for the people handling the handover.
Explore offboarding with your teamWatch the 46-second example ↓
Avery reviews five completed steps and four with nothing to change. Priya’s previous Aegis session is refused in a separate check. Her seat is vacant, with Ethan responsible for supervision until a replacement is appointed.
Use fullscreen for a closer look, or read the story.
The opening is a seven-second hold of the genuine pre-offboarding directory screenshot. The saved-role view is a separate later capture. The same previously working session was verified as rejected after offboarding; sign-in and credential checks are not included in the film.
The receipt has five Done and four Nothing to do outcomes. Failed and Needs a human outcomes were not exercised in this case. The persisted receipt was checked through the supported API; no history-reopening screen is shown.
This demonstrates selected Aegis access changes, not external SaaS account revocation or a completed HR termination. The retained directory card is marked deleted. Supervision is not a new appointment or proof that a subsequent agent task ran. Native environment badges remain visible.
Fictional organisation, people and records. Captured in the local application on 28 September 2026, with an automated operator using the named accounts. Cuts shorten navigation and exclude sign-in. This recording does not establish production availability or mobile-app support.
Download captions (VTT) · Download subtitles (SRT) · Download transcript
Inspect a separate invoice-analysis run and the decisions around its plan. The submitted-document example above shows the actual owner rejection.
See the earlier invoice conversation: a request, questions about missing evidence, approval of analysis and a recommendation.
Review an invoice mismatch · 45 seconds
The assistant asks for missing evidence, proposes steps for a person to review, then returns its analysis after approval. Its answer recommends human follow-up; approving the analysis does not approve payment.
The assistant asks for missing evidence, proposes steps for a person to review, then returns its analysis after approval. Its answer recommends human follow-up; approving the analysis does not approve payment.
Download the original recording (embedded English remains).
The answer completed. This run reports that its action records were not cryptographically verified (checked for authenticity).
Aegis can read a submitted invoice and send that request for review. Give the agent the procedure, permissions and review rules for the job. The submitted-document walkthrough above follows one file through the owner’s decision.
See an assigned invoice procedure shape an answer. Assigning the procedure is separate from choosing how the invoice arrives. A separate text upload creates a draft reference, not an invoice case.
Keep the decision clear. The analysis plan can be approved without authorizing payment. The Northstar document walkthrough follows one submitted invoice through a rejection recorded by the demo operator using the CFO account. The earlier simulated limit check remains a separately labelled example.
Watch the CFO review →Some work should stay advisory. Other tasks can run within approved limits, with exceptions brought to a person. The right choice depends on the task’s risk.
These captures show the invoice and the saved exception. The leadership notice was linked manually and is a notification, not an approval screen.
Measure today’s handling time, including checking and corrections. Compare it with the same work using Aegis.
Check missing evidence, wrong answers and exceptions. Include the time people spend reviewing the agent’s output.
Include software, AI usage, integration and support. Test approval rules, data access and how to stop work.
Choose one team and one recurring task. We’ll walk through the work, the controls and the setup it needs.