BlogPricingFAQ

Phone: 03-6629-3846 (weekdays 10:00-18:00)

Use caseManagement controlApproval requestsAuthority policy

Using AI to check whether approval requests follow the authority policy

Draft approval requests were checked against authority rules, approval policies, and credit limits. AI judged approver authority and missing required consultations with evidence, preventing out-of-authority approvals.

ININDX Editorial TeamProduct Team||7 min read
Management desk with approval folders and blocks representing approval routes

After circulating the request, the approver returned it because this amount required the board, not a department manager. We used INDX Compliance to solve this familiar pain for corporate administration approval offices using real product screens.

Background

Why Authority Checks For Approval Requests Are So Stressful

At one company, the Corporate Administration approval officereceives dozens of approval requests each month. Requesting departments vary, and the amounts cover capital investments, outsourcing, and credit matters. The office must check not only request content but alsowhether the approver has enough authority for that amount by comparing it with the authority policy schedule.

The authority schedule is granular, and the required approver changes based on request type, amount, and contract form. The approval policy also specifies details such as when Legal consultation is required and which attachments are needed. Checking everything before circulation takes substantial effort, and misses still happen.

Challenges encountered

  • Checking the authority holder for each approval amount against the schedule took more than 30 minutes before circulation
  • Requests exceeding authority were sometimes discovered only after reaching the approver and had to be fully returned
  • Missing required consultation departments commonly caused returns and repeated email exchanges with requesting departments
  • Reasons for returns and final reviewers were not recorded, making later tracing difficult
01Walkthrough

Describe What You Want Checked In Plain Language

No complex setup is required.Check whether the approval request follows the approval route required by the authority policy and approval policy.We entered it in the same words someone would use with a manager. The AI automatically built the review workflow and checkpoints.

app.indx-compliance.com/start/draft

Your instruction (plain language is fine)

Check whether the drafted approval request follows the approval route required by the authority policy and approval policy. Identify missing authority for the amount or required consultations, with evidence.

AI generated the check workflowdraft · 4 steps
  1. 01Import authority and approval policies

    Import the authority policy, approval policy, and credit limit criteria

  2. 02Evaluate request details and approval route

    Check approver authority, required consultations, and attachments for the amount item by item

  3. 03Validate decision evidence and confidence

    Verify that the cited authority policy schedules and clauses exist

  4. 04Final human review

    Route only needs-review or noncompliant requests to the office and approvers

Screen 1From the plain-language instruction, the AI generated four steps: import authority policies, evaluate the approval route, validate evidence, and route to final human review. Review and save the workflow.

No programming knowledge or complex rule setup is required. The generated workflow can be reviewed, edited, and reused with the same checkpoints.

02Walkthrough

Run It To See Evidence-Backed Pass/Fail Results

After the workflow is saved and run, the AI checks whether each approval request item satisfies authority policy and approval policy requirements. Results are consolidated on one screen. The key point is thatevery decision includes the exact policy and clause used as evidence, so reviewers can verify the source text instead of accepting AI output blindly. Tap a row to open the cited evidence.

app.indx-compliance.com/runs/run_ringisho-R2026-0412
Approval Request CheckApproval Request No. R-2026-0412

Compared against the Authority Policy (schedule: approval authority criteria), Approval Policy, and Credit Limit Criteria

Approval Request Authority Compliance Check

Executed 2026-05-27 | 7 checks

Evidence included

4

Pass

2

Needs review

1

Noncompliant

Compliant 57%
  • Decision evidenceAuthority Policy Schedule (Approval Authority Criteria) p.2

    Under the approval category for capital investments (Schedule 1),capital investments exceeding JPY 30 million require a board resolution. Investments over JPY 10 million and up to JPY 30 million require executive committee approval.

    Checked standard
    Authority Policy Schedule (Approval Authority Criteria)
    Source-text comparison
    Possible conflict with authority policy
    AI confidence
    88%

    This request is for a JPY 30 million capital investment but was drafted for department manager approval. It should require a board resolution and exceeds the approver's authority.

Screen 2Shows 4 pass, 2 needs review, and 1 noncompliant item. Click a row to open the cited authority or approval policy text, highlighted evidence, and reason for the conflict.

This time, the AI found a JPY 30 million capital investment drafted for department manager approval even though it required a board resolutionas one noncompliant item. It is clearly stated in the authority policy schedule, but if discovered after circulation, it causes major rework.

03Walkthrough

Humans Review Only Needs-Review And Noncompliant Items

The four items the AI marked as pass can pass with evidence. Human attention is needed only forthe two needs-review items and one noncompliant item, three in total. The reviewer returned the authority-exceeding request, the requesting department corrected the route and added Legal consultation, and final approval was confirmed after a rerun.

app.indx-compliance.com/runs/run_ringisho-R2026-0412/review

Final review (confirmed by a person)

NoncompliantApprover with authority for the approval amount

Capital investments over JPY 30 million require a board resolution. Drafting this for department manager approval exceeds authority, so it was returned to the requesting department.

Humans only review the 3 items that need review or are noncompliant.The 4 passing items can pass with evidence, letting reviewers focus on judgment.

Audit log (tamper-resistant)

  1. 09:14AI

    Assessed 7 checks (4 pass / 2 needs review / 1 noncompliant)

    hash c3a7…1f

  2. 09:31Approval Office, Yamada

    Returned approval authority exceeded (department manager approval) and requested change to board resolution

    hash e8b2…4d

  3. 10:55Requesting Department, Suzuki

    Updated route to board resolution, added Legal consultation, reran -> pass

    hash a1f4…78

  4. 10:56Approval Office, Yamada

    Approved and finalized all items. Officially circulated as a board agenda item

    hash d9c0…55

Screen 3Left: humans review only items requiring action. Right: every action from AI assessment to human approval and returns is automatically stored in a tamper-resistant log.

All actions and decisions are recorded in a tamper-resistant audit log. You can later trace when, who, what, and on what evidence a decision was made, so it can be used directly for internal audits and management meeting explanations.

Result

Authority Checks Complete As Soon As The Request Is Drafted

The pre-circulation check that used to require manual review of the authority policy schedule is now automatically assessed at drafting. The biggest reassurance for reviewers was that requests exceeding authority could be reliably stopped before circulation.

Immediate
Pre-circulation authority check

Assessed at drafting

100%
Decisions with evidence

Instant authority schedule review

3 / 7 items
Reduced to items requiring human review

4 passing items pass through

Key points from this case

  • Check setup uses plain-language instructions only. No one needs to memorize the authority schedule.
  • Every pass/fail decision includes source evidence from the authority policy and approval policy, so humans can verify it instead of accepting AI output blindly.
  • Humans review only needs-review and noncompliant items, letting them focus on judgment and prevent missed authority excesses.
  • Actions and decisions remain in a tamper-resistant log that can be used directly for internal audits and management meeting explanations.
Summary

Policies, Contracts, And Applications Follow The Same Pattern

This was an approval request example, but INDX Compliance works the same way across use cases. Provide the benchmark documents (authority policy, approval policy, and credit limit criteria) and the document to check (approval request), then compare them with supporting evidence. The same workflow applies to internal policy consistency checks, contract review, ISO audit readiness reviews, and any work that involves checking against rules.

Try it in your workflow,starting with one document.

Bring a policy, contract, or application document, and we will demo the actual judgment screen. Closed-network and on-premise deployments are supported.

Download the 3-piece product materials set for free

Free download