Intelligent Document Processing Services With Accuracy You Can Audit

MindInventory builds intelligent document processing for claim files, tax forms, invoices and contracts, delivering structured records straight into the systems you already run. We link every value to its source page and route uncertain fields to a named reviewer, so nothing unchecked reaches your records. You see per-field accuracy on your own documents before a production build starts.

Trusted By Global Clients, Including Fortune 500 Companies

Built by our team, in production today

Claim handling costs reduced by 33% at ClaimClarity, a workers' compensation claims platform, through NLP extraction of medical narratives, correspondence and forms.

A 50 to 70% reduction in manual data entry at intake, reported by a US tax advisory platform after we built its AI document intake.

Tax forms parsed by Amazon Textract and structured by Claude in production, with an advisor approving every value.

From first review to production

Timeline Week 2
What it covers a feasibility recommendation and fixed cost estimate for one document type, free.
Timeline Weeks 6 - 10
What it covers a proof of concept on your own documents, with accuracy reported per field.
Timeline Weeks 8 - 14 of a build
What it covers your first document family in production, for $25,000 to $60,000.
Timeline After Launch
What it covers an alert when a sender changes its layout, before accuracy drops unnoticed.

70+

AI and ML specialists

300+

Engineering specialists

2700+

Projects delivered

1800+

Clients served

15+

Years in business

ISO 42001: 2023

ISO 42001: 2023

ISO 27001: 2022

ISO 27001: 2022

ISO 9001: 2015

ISO 9001: 2015

SOC2 Type II

SOC2 Type II

HIPAA

HIPAA

GDPR

GDPR

What you get from AI document extraction

You get four things that stay with your team after launch: a schema per document family, a test set built from your own documents, a review queue for uncertain fields, and a pipeline connected to your system of record. Your auditor, finance lead or claims manager can open and inspect each one.

An extraction schema per document family. icon

An extraction schema per document family.

Every field has a type, format and validation rule, so a policy number, a CPT code and an invoice total are each checked before acceptance.

A labeled test set and evaluation harness. icon

A labeled test set and evaluation harness.

Built from your own documents, including the worst scans, it reports accuracy per field and transfers to you at handover.

Confidence-based review routing. icon

Confidence-based review routing.

Values below a threshold you set go to a named reviewer, and each correction is stored against its source page and region.

A production pipeline in your cloud account. icon

A production pipeline in your cloud account.

It writes to your ERP, claims platform or EHR through its API.

Where you are now
Where you are after launch

Staff re-key totals, policy numbers and dates from PDFs into the ERP or claims system.

Fields arrive pre-filled, and staff review only the values the system flags as uncertain.

Nobody can say how accurate current capture is, because nobody measures it.

Accuracy is reported per field and per document type, from a test set of your own documents.

A mixed claim packet is sorted by hand before anyone can start reading it.

Each page is classified and split on arrival, and the handler opens one structured file.

When an extracted value is wrong, nobody can tell which page it came from.

Every value links to its source page and region, and every human correction is logged.

A volume spike means hiring temporary staff or falling behind on the backlog.

Processing capacity scales with volume, and scales back down when the peak passes.

Document AI systems we have put into production

You can judge the method by two production systems solving different document problems: free-text medical narratives in workers' compensation claims, and tax forms arriving in seasonal bursts. Each card states what we built and whose result each number is, so a platform's figure never reads as ours. 

Sully AI: task-routed LLMs for clinical documentation

Health systems needed documentation, coding and triage that stayed accurate across specialties, with every interaction touching patient data auditable. As Sully AI's dedicated build team, we helped deliver six agents on an LLM layer that routes each task to OpenAI or Llama models, with a licensed provider approving every note before it enters the record.

Outcomes:

12.5M+minutes of clinical documentation automated
2xProviders handling the workload without additional hours
NativeEpic and athenahealth integration
Check Case Study

See these numbers on your own documents.

Send one document type for an AI Feasibility Assessment: 2 weeks, free, with a fixed estimate.

Request the Assessment
Digital document folders and files representing structured data extracted from documents

Document types we extract data from

You can check whether your documents are on the list before you talk to anyone. The grid groups the document types we scope by the team that receives them. Each ends as a structured record in the system that team already uses, and most document sets combine two or more groups.

Extracted records go to your ERP, claims platform, EHR, contract repository or data warehouse through its API. On our tax platform build, the intake pipeline works alongside QuickBooks Online and Drake integrations.

Claims and healthcare. icon

Claims and healthcare.

First report of injury, CMS-1500 and UB-04 bills, explanation of benefits statements, medical narratives, claim correspondence.

Finance and accounts payable. icon

Finance and accounts payable.

Invoices, credit notes, purchase orders, remittance advices, bank statements.

Tax and compliance. icon

Tax and compliance.

Uploaded individual and business tax forms, supporting schedules, KYC and identity documents.

Legal and contracts. icon

Legal and contracts.

Master agreements, amendments, statements of work, NDAs.

OCR, vision-language model, or hybrid extraction

You can choose the extraction method before you choose a vendor. Three approaches cover most document sets. The right one depends on layout variety, what a wrong value costs, and whether each value must trace to a place on the page, and the last row says when not to build at all.
Factor
OCR with templates or prebuilt models
Vision-language model alone
Hybrid: OCR plus LLM, with validation
Fits best
Fixed layouts from known senders
Varied layouts at low volume, or a prototype
Varied layouts where a wrong value has a cost
New layout arrives
Needs a new template or model
Usually handled without retraining
Usually handled, with validation catching misses
Traces a value to its page region
Yes, from OCR word coordinates
Weak, coordinates are unreliable
Yes, each value checked against OCR text and position
Typical failure
Breaks silently when a layout changes
Returns a plausible value that is not on the page
More components to build and monitor
Running cost per page
Lowest
Highest
In between, model calls only where needed
Who should build it
Often nobody: buy a packaged platform or prebuilt model
Your own team, for a prototype
A build partner, which is where we fit

When this is the wrong purchase

Not a fit

Your documents are standard invoices or receipts from common senders at moderate volume. Prebuilt models in Amazon Textract or Azure Document Intelligence, or a packaged platform such as ABBYY or UiPath Document Understanding, will cost less and ship faster.

Not a fit

Nobody owns the error rate. If no one is accountable for correcting a wrong value downstream, the review queue fills and stays full.

Not a fit

You need the system to act on what it reads by approving, paying, denying or routing. Extraction feeds those decisions, and they belong to AI process automation.

Not a fit

Your inputs are photographs of objects or scenes, such as vehicle damage or site conditions. That is computer vision development.

Not a fit

You want to ask questions across a document library instead of capturing fields into a system of record. That calls for retrieval-augmented generation work.

Not a fit

You want the cheapest option on a three-week timeline. We are slower and more expensive than that, because the review gate and evaluation harness take time to build.

Why per-field accuracy decides the business case

You can predict your review workload before you build, because it depends on one number most proposals never state: the share of documents that pass every field without review. Field accuracy compounds across a document. A pipeline that reads each field correctly 98% of the time still sends a third of 20-field documents to a reviewer. Three things follow, and each changes how the system should be built.

Accuracy per field 95%
Documents with all 20 fields correct 36%
Documents needing at least one review 64%
Accuracy per field 98%
Documents with all 20 fields correct 67%
Documents needing at least one review 33%
Accuracy per field 99%
Documents with all 20 fields correct 82%
Documents needing at least one review 18%
Accuracy per field 99.5%
Documents with all 20 fields correct 90%
Documents needing at least one review 10%

Three things follow, and each changes how the system should be built.

The table assumes field errors are independent. Real errors cluster on bad scans, which usually leaves the clean-document rate somewhat better than shown, and the proof of concept measures the real figure on your documents.

Fewer fields can beat a better model.

At 98% per field, a 10-field schema leaves 82% of documents clean, the same rate a 20-field schema reaches only at 99%. Every field nobody downstream uses is review work you pay for, so the schema is cut to what the receiving team actually consumes.

Validation turns errors into flags.

A line-item total that must match the invoice total catches a misread digit on its own. The error still exists, but it arrives in the review queue already marked and never reaches your ledger unseen.

Review time matters as much as review rate.

A reviewer who sees a flagged field beside its source region confirms it in seconds. One who has to open the PDF and search for it takes minutes. Showing the source region is what keeps a 33% review rate affordable.

Intelligent document processing services we deliver

You can start with one document family and add others on the same pipeline. Each of the four builds below ends in records your downstream system accepts without re-keying, and a second family reuses the review queue, evaluation harness and integration built for the first.

Invoice processing AI icon

Invoice processing AI

You get invoices captured at header and line-item level and checked before anything posts. Line items must sum to the stated subtotal, tax must match the rate that applies to the vendor, and each invoice must pass a three-way match against an open purchase order and goods receipt. Vendor name, tax ID and remit-to bank details are checked against your vendor master, so a changed bank account is flagged before payment. Duplicates are caught by vendor, amount and date, including resubmissions carrying a new invoice number, and credit notes are matched to the invoice they reverse. Your ERP receives a posting-ready record, and every exception lands in your accounts payable queue with its reason attached.

Claims document AI icon

Claims document AI

You get a claim file that arrives sorted. A mixed packet is split into individual documents and each page is classified: first report of injury, CMS-1500 and UB-04 bills, medical narratives, correspondence and policy documents. Pages that match no known type go to a reviewer marked unclassified instead of being forced into the wrong schema. ICD-10 diagnosis codes and CPT procedure codes are extracted and format-checked, and billed line amounts are totaled against the claim total. Medical narratives, the free-text part of the file, are structured into the facts an adjuster needs, which is the work ClaimClarity runs in production. The handler opens one record with every value linked to its source page.

Contract data extraction icon

Contract data extraction

You get the terms that carry risk as fields: parties, effective and expiry dates, renewal terms and notice periods, payment terms, liability caps, indemnities and governing law. Amendments are linked to the master agreement they modify, so your register shows the terms in force today instead of the terms first signed. Each clause is compared against your own playbook, and a missing clause, a non-standard cap or an unexpected governing law goes to legal review before the contract is filed. The result is a register of obligations across every contract you hold, with each field linked to the clause and page it came from.

OCR pipelines for scans and handwriting icon

OCR pipelines for scans and handwriting

You get an OCR layer chosen for your documents, not by habit. Pages are deskewed, denoised and split before recognition, because recognition quality depends more on the input image than on the engine. The engine can differ by document type: a clean digital PDF needs text extraction and no OCR at all, while a faxed form needs full recognition. Handwritten entries carry their own confidence score, and low-confidence words route to review, never to a guess. The full layer list is in section 12.

Intelligent document processing cost and timeline

You can place your project on our standard pricing before any call. Most first engagements run a proof of concept on your own documents, then put a single document family into production. Four factors decide where you land inside a band, and none of them is the model.

The four factors are how many layouts you receive, how much arrives handwritten or faxed, whether your system of record has a documented API, and whether protected health information or audit retention rules apply. Running cost scales with pages: an OCR charge per page, plus a model call for fields that need interpretation. Model it at your peak monthly volume alongside the build price. No production build starts until the proof of concept passes. Our AI development services page sets out how these engagement sizes work across every service line.

Check what's possible with your documents
Engagement
What it covers for document processing
Cost
Timeline
AI Feasibility Assessment
One document type reviewed against your samples, written recommendation, fixed estimate
Free
2 weeks
Proof of concept
Your documents, a labeled test set, accuracy reported per field
Under $25,000
6 to 10 weeks
Focused AI solution
One document family in production, a review queue, one system-of-record integration
$25,000 to $60,000
8 to 14 weeks
Production AI system
Several document families, or a claims or healthcare workflow carrying protected health information
$60,000 to $150,000
4 to 8 months
Large or regulated program
Multiple business units, document sets and systems of record
$150,000+
8 to 14 months
Ongoing MLOps
Accuracy monitoring, new senders and layouts, retraining on reviewer corrections
15 to 20% of build cost annually
Continuous

How your documents are handled

You can answer your security team’s first questions from this section. Claim files and tax forms carry protected health information, Social Security numbers and bank details, so document handling is designed before extraction is, and it is written into the architecture you approve before any build starts.

Isometric illustration of a document being scanned and reviewed

Where documents live

Processing runs in your cloud account and region, and source images stay in your storage.

Who sees what

Role-based access separates reviewers, administrators and end clients. On our tax platform build, Admin, Accountant and Client permissions are separated and each firm's data is logically isolated.

Sensitive fields

Social Security numbers, account numbers and member IDs can be masked on the review screen and in logs, so a reviewer sees only the field under review.

Retention

You set how long source images, extracted values and reviewer corrections are kept, and every deletion is logged.

Model providers

A hosted model interprets documents only under terms that exclude training on your data. Where documents cannot leave your environment, an open-weight model runs inside it.

What we build document pipelines on

You can see which tools have run in our production builds and which are capability we bring. We list them separately, because a tool named on a vendor’s page tells you nothing until you know whether that vendor has shipped with it.
Layer
In our production builds
We also build with
OCR and document parsing
Amazon Textract (tax platform)
Docling, LlamaParse, Unstructured
Interpretation models
Claude (tax platform)
GPT, Gemini, Llama, Mistral, Qwen
Output control
Advisor review gate (tax platform)
Structured output, function calling, Guardrails AI
Evaluation and observability
Per-field test sets on every build
DeepEval, Promptfoo, Langfuse, OpenTelemetry
Application and cloud
AWS EC2, S3, RDS and Lambda; Node.js; PostgreSQL (tax platform)
Azure AI Foundry, Vertex AI, Kubernetes

Why teams choose us for document processing builds

Hybrid extraction already runs in production.

The OCR plus LLM approach in the decision table below is the one running on the tax platform above.

A person stays accountable for every number that matters.

No extracted value reaches that platform's calculation engine until a licensed advisor approves it. We build the same gate into claims and finance workflows.

We publish the math before the proposal.

The clean-document table in section 9 is how we size your review queue during the feasibility assessment, so the business case rests on your documents, not on a vendor's benchmark.

You own everything we build.

Pipelines, extraction schemas, model weights and the evaluation harness are yours from day one, and your documents never train models for anyone else.

Get an AI Feasibility Assessment for one document type

Name one document workflow and give us access to its data owner. In 2 weeks, at no cost, you receive a written feasibility recommendation, architecture options, a clean-document estimate for your schema and a fixed cost estimate. Sometimes the recommendation is not to build.

Request the Assessment
Isometric illustration of a document scroll being reviewed with a magnifying glass and an AI chip

Intelligent document processing FAQs

Explore answers to common questions about Intelligent document processing capabilities.

OCR converts an image of text into characters and stops there. Intelligent document processing adds classification, field extraction, validation against business rules and routing of uncertain values to a person. Run a scanned invoice through OCR and you get text. Run it through IDP and you get a vendor, a total and a matched purchase order.

Yes, at lower confidence than printed text, so handwriting gets its own review threshold. Printed forms, handwritten form entries and cursive notes are measured separately in your test set because they behave differently. Faxes and phone photos improve with cleanup before recognition, and a field that stays unreadable is flagged for review, never guessed.

Expect two measured numbers from your own documents, never a figure quoted in advance: accuracy for each field, and the share of documents that need no review at all. The second decides your staffing. The proof of concept reports both on a labeled test set, and you set each field’s review threshold before any production commitment.

Template-based systems usually break without warning, while hybrid systems usually keep working at lower confidence. Either way, the change should appear as a confidence drop for that sender. After launch, confidence is tracked by sender and document type, an alert fires when it shifts, and the new layout joins the test set before retraining.

No. A hybrid pipeline needs a labeled test set to measure accuracy, not a large training set, so a few representative samples per layout, including your worst scans, are enough to start. Template and custom-trained models need more examples per layout. The feasibility assessment states how many samples your set needs.

Multi-page tables are rebuilt as one table before extraction, by matching repeated headers and column positions across page breaks. This matters for long invoice line items, explanation of benefits statements and bank statements, where a split table duplicates or drops rows. Validation then checks that rows sum to the stated total, exposing any error.

Yes. The pipeline reads from a monitored mailbox or an upload API, classifies the email body and each attachment separately, and keeps every document linked to the message it arrived with. One email carrying an invoice, a remittance advice and a delivery note produces three records, and a reply that supplies a missing page is attached to the original case.

Printed text in the major Latin-script languages is well supported by commercial OCR engines. Support for other scripts, and for handwriting in languages other than English, varies by engine, so engine choice follows the languages you actually receive. Your test set includes documents in each of those languages, and accuracy is reported for each one before any production commitment.
Related services

Explore our other related services to enhance the performance of your digital product

AI Process Automation

When the base model is not accurate enough on your domain and prompting has stopped helping.

RAG Development

When answers must be grounded in your own documents and cite them.

Computer Vision Development

When unstructured documents need to become structured records at accuracy.

Data Engineering for AI

For EU AI Act classification, marking and disclosure posture, and decision provenance.

AI INSIGHTS FROM OUR ENGINEERING TEAM
Written by the people doing the work, for the questions that come up before a project starts.