Approval requests were checked against credit management policy, transaction limit rules, financial screening criteria such as equity and current ratios, and collateral conditions. AI automatically detected limit excesses and financial shortfalls with evidence, improving both speed and accuracy.
Every credit approval review means manually checking the policy limit and financial thresholds against the request and financial statements. We tested how INDX Compliance handles this workflow for sales administration and finance teams, using real product screens.
At one manufacturer, the sales administration team receives dozens of credit approval requests each month for new and existing customers.Credit management policies, credit limit policies, financial indicator criteria, and collateral and guarantee criteriaall have to be checked before each request can be approved or rejected.
The hard part is that checkpoints are scattered across documents: limits are in schedules, financial thresholds are in criteria documents, and collateral terms are in separate policies.Reviewers have to know which request triggers which clause in which policy, so review quality depended heavily on individual experience and changed when responsibilities moved.
Challenges encountered
No complex setup is required.Check whether this credit approval request satisfies the transaction limit, financial indicator, and collateral requirements in the credit management policy.The AI then automatically builds the review steps and reference documents.
Your instruction (plain language is fine)
Check whether this credit approval request for a new customer satisfies the credit management policy requirements for credit limits, financial indicators (equity ratio and current ratio), and collateral terms. Also show the policy clauses used as evidence.
Target documents (comparison benchmark)
01Import the credit policy and credit limit policy
Set the credit management policy, credit limit policy, and collateral/guarantee criteria as target documents
02Compare financial indicators against thresholds
Assess equity ratio, current ratio, insolvency status, and other financial criteria defined in the credit policy
03Validate decision evidence and confidence
Check that cited credit policy clauses and financial thresholds actually exist. Exclude outputs with no evidence
04Final review by credit control
Route only requests needing review or noncompliant requests to the reviewer, and record approvals, rejections, and conditions
No programming knowledge or complex rule definition is needed. The generated workflow can be reviewed, edited, and reused from the next month onward. Teams can also create separate templates for new credit, increases, and renewals.
After the workflow is saved and run, the AI assesses each checkpoint in the credit approval request. Results are grouped by limit, financial indicator, and collateral condition 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.
Compared against the Credit Management Policy, Credit Limit Policy, Financial Indicator Review Criteria, and Collateral/Guarantee Criteria
Credit Approval Compliance Check
Executed 2026-04-30 | 8 checks
4
Compliant
2
Needs review
2
Noncompliant
When starting a new transaction, any transaction exceeding the credit limit set by the Credit Management Committeemust not be executed without prior committee approval. The limit is determined under the schedule criteria based on the credit investigation results.
The requested amount is JPY 32 million, while the credit limit is JPY 20 million (schedule customer code: T-2041). It exceeds the limit by JPY 12 million and cannot be executed without committee approval.
This run found two noncompliant items: the requested amount exceeded the JPY 20 million transaction limit by JPY 12 million and the equity ratio was only 8.4% against the 15% review threshold. Both are easy to miss in manual review and create direct internal control risk if approved.
The four checkpoints marked compliant can pass with evidence: solvency, credit investigation, approval route, and validity period. Human attention is needed only forthe two needs-review items and two noncompliant items. The reviewer returned the request, the requester corrected the amount and collateral valuation report, and the committee chair finalized the credit approval after a rerun.
Final review (confirmed by a person)
Requested amount is JPY 32 million against a JPY 20 million limit. Under Credit Management Policy Article 8, execution is not permitted without committee approval. Returned to the requesting department.
The request says collateral will be provided, but the valuation report is missing. Under Collateral and Guarantee Criteria Article 6, approval is possible after receiving the report.
Humans only review the 4 items that need review or are noncompliant.The 4 compliant items can pass with evidence, letting reviewers focus on limits, financials, and collateral.
Audit log (tamper-resistant)
Assessed 8 checks (4 compliant / 2 needs review / 2 noncompliant). Detected credit limit excess and insufficient equity ratio
hash d4a9…2f
Issued rejection notice for credit limit exceeded and insufficient equity ratio. Returned to requesting department to revise conditions
hash b8e1…4c
Revised transaction amount to JPY 20 million, added real estate collateral valuation report, resubmitted, and reran AI
hash f2c3…77
Reassessment: all 8 checks changed to compliant after limit and collateral terms were corrected
hash a7d5…1e
Approved all 8 items and finalized credit (valid May 2026 through April 2027)
hash c0f8…39
All actions and decisions are recorded in a tamper-resistant audit log. Teams can later trace who made each decision, when it was made, which policy evidence was used, and why. The record can be used directly for internal audits and explanations to financial institutions.
Initial review that used to take 30 to 60 minutes per request now finishes inminutesfrom preparing checkpoints to handing off to the reviewer. The biggest gain is that limit excesses and financial indicator issues are detected before return, reducing internal control risk from missed issues.
Initial review through committee approval
Instant clause and threshold review
4 compliant items pass with evidence
Key points from this case
This was a credit management example, but INDX Compliance works the same way across use cases.Provide the benchmark documents and the documents to check, then compare them with supporting evidence. Contract risk clause review, expense policy checks, and ISO audit readiness reviews all follow the same pattern. The same workflow applies anywhere business work must be checked against rules.
Bring a policy, contract, or application document, and we will demo the actual judgment screen. Closed-network and on-premise deployments are supported.
Use caseWe compared a newly revised information security management policy against higher-level basic policies, work rules, and APPI requirements, then had AI identify conflicting clauses with evidence.
Use caseWe compared a near-final specification against Patent Act Article 36, JPO formatting, and internal filing guidelines, then had AI identify support and clarity issues in the claims with evidence.
Use caseBefore the internal audit, AI performed a first-pass check on whether the quality manual and department procedures met ISO 9001:2015 clauses 4-10, detecting missing corrective-action and audit provisions with evidence.
Download the 3-piece product materials set for free
Product overview, sample checklist creation, and ROI estimate sheet (PDF)