Contents
Key points
- Bexio plans fully automatic posting of standard invoices for 2027; Abacus creates postings from supplier invoices according to rules. Data entry shrinks, review grows.
- Coding judgement, VAT codes, accruals, follow-up questions to the client and responsibility towards the client stay with people.
- A review layer checks every entry against the receipt and rules written in plain language, flags each exception with its source reference and puts it to a named person for approval. A replay log records who decided what and when.
- The review layer works with the exports that Bexio, Abacus and other programs already provide. New software is usually not needed.
- Ask your software vendor in writing whether every automatic posting is logged, whether it can be traced back to the receipt, and who corrects it when it is wrong.
What the vendors are announcing
On its page about AI in Bexio (in German), Bexio describes two stages. Today the software reads receipts and suggests the ledger account, and a person confirms. For 2027 it plans fully automatic posting of standard invoices in the background, with people looking only at exceptions. The vendor itself writes that the fiduciary moves from data entry to review.
Abacus describes a similar path on its page about AI-based document processing (in German). Its AI, DeepO, reads supplier invoices, assigns them to a cost centre or project according to defined rules, creates the posting and triggers the approval process. Other accounting programs are adding receipt recognition and coding suggestions too; the details are on each vendor's site.
For a fiduciary office, the number of typed entries falls. The number of entries someone has to answer for does not.
What changes when the software posts
| Step | Today, by hand | When the software posts |
|---|---|---|
| Recording a receipt | Typing amount, date, supplier and VAT | The software reads it; people see only the exceptions |
| Choosing the account | Whoever types decides while typing | The software suggests what was posted last time |
| Spotting errors | Often noticed in passing while typing | Only noticed if someone looks for it deliberately |
| Evidence | The initials of the person in the entry | Depends on what the system logs |
The third row is the one that matters. Whoever enters a receipt by hand checks it along the way: the decorator's invoice addressed to the owner's home stands out while typing. When the software posts, that glance disappears. It has to be built back in somewhere else.
A worked example with round assumptions: a client has 200 receipts a month. If the software posts 150 of them on its own, 50 come up as exceptions for review. Nobody has looked at the 150 automatic entries. The annual accounts are still signed for all 200.
As data entry shrinks, so do the hours you bill for it today. What that means for your fee model is covered in Hourly rate or flat fee when AI saves time.
What stays with people
- Coding judgement
- Whether the new laptop is an expense or an asset, and whether the dinner is entertainment or a staff cost, depends on the case. The software suggests what was posted last time. Whether that fits this time is known by whoever knows the client and the business.
- VAT codes
- Acquisition tax on services from suppliers abroad, reduced input tax for mixed use, two rates on the same invoice: the code decides what flows into the return. A code learned wrongly repeats on every invoice from the same supplier. If a client files VAT annually, which has been possible on application since 2025 for annual turnover up to CHF 5'005'000.-, the error may only surface with the annual return.
- Accruals and deferrals
- An invoice dated January for work done in December belongs to the old year. The software sees the invoice date; whoever speaks to the client knows the service period. The same applies to prepayments, bonuses and provisions at year end.
- Follow-up with the client
- A receipt with no obvious business purpose, a private share, a missing slip. The software can flag it. Asking the client and judging the answer stays with a person.
- Responsibility
- Towards the client, the fiduciary remains responsible for carrying out the mandate with due care, even when AI did the groundwork. That is how TREUHAND|SUISSE (in German) reads it, with reference to Art. 398 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. Clarify the details with your legal adviser.
These five points have one thing in common: they need knowledge that is on no receipt. That is where judgement stays, and that is where a review is needed that can be evidenced.
A review layer, independent of the system
A review layer sits on top of the books, whatever program they are kept in. It reads what was posted, reconciles it against receipts and rules, and puts the exceptions in front of a named person. It does not repost anything itself.
- 01ExportJournal, receipts and VAT return, as Bexio, Abacus or another program already exports them as files.
- 02Rules in plain languageWritten the way you would explain them to a new colleague: check services from suppliers abroad for acquisition tax. Check invoices above an amount you set for capitalisation. Check January invoices for the service period.
- 03Review with source referenceEvery entry is read, not just a sample. Every exception appears with the entry number, the receipt and the rule that triggered it.
- 04ApprovalA named person decides: the entry stands, or it is corrected in the accounting program. Corrections are made by a person, visibly and never silently.
- 05Replay logIt records which entry, which rule, who approved it and when.
The review layer sits beside the system, not inside it. The clients of a fiduciary office rarely all use the same program, yet the office's rules should apply the same way everywhere. A system that checks its own postings reviews with two eyes rather than four. And the systems learn; both vendors say so. A suggestion in March can differ from one in January, while a rule in plain language stays until someone changes it, and that change is in the log.
New software is usually not needed for this; the review layer works with the exports that already exist. How long such logs have to be kept, and what the Swiss ordinance on keeping business records (GeBüV) requires, is covered in Replay log and GeBüV.
Questions to ask your software vendor
The questions below apply to every vendor. They do not rate any program; they clarify where your own review has to start. Ask them in writing and file the answers with the engagement documents.
| Topic | What to ask for | A useful answer |
|---|---|---|
| Log | Ask to be shown where every automatic posting is recorded with its time, the suggestion and the person who confirmed it. | Yes, per entry, and the log can be exported. |
| Traceability | Ask to be shown, on a real entry, which receipt and which rule it came from. | Yes, with a reference to the receipt and to the rule or learned pattern. |
| Correction | Ask who corrects a wrong automatic posting and whether the original entry stays visible. | A person corrects it, the correction is a separate entry, nothing is overwritten. |
| Standard invoice | Ask what counts as a standard invoice and who decides what goes to review as an exception. | You decide, and you can see the setting. |
| Learning | Ask what the system learns from and how a wrongly learned assignment can be reset. | From your corrections, with an overview of the learned assignments. |
| Retention | Ask how long logs and receipts stay readable, including after a change of program. | As long as the books themselves, as an export in an open format. |
A figure for recognition accuracy answers none of these questions. It says how often the system is right. The log shows what happened when it was wrong.
What the review layer does not do
- It does not replace your accounting program and does not repost anything.
- It corrects nothing silently. Every exception goes to a named person with its source reference.
- It does not decide coding questions. Whatever the rules cannot assign clearly comes to you as an open question.
- It writes to no client without approval, not even a follow-up question.
How to start: one client, one month
Pick one client whose program already suggests or creates postings. Export the journal for a closed month together with the receipts. Write down five rules in plain language that you currently check in your head, for example the five points above. Then count how many entries the rules flag and how long the review takes.
For comparison, you need the time data entry costs today. Work it out with the free Shoebox Calculator on one month of receipts. Paper receipts that still arrive in a box are the subject of Shoebox receipts. How Grow Amplified first costs a process in your own hours and only then builds it is described under Approach.
Frequently asked questions
Will accounting software soon post everything without people?
Bexio plans fully automatic posting of standard invoices for 2027, with exceptions still going to review. Abacus creates postings from supplier invoices according to rules and then triggers an approval process. In both cases, responsibility for the accounts stays with people.
Do I need a new program for a review layer?
Usually not. The review layer works with the exports your program provides today: journal, receipts, VAT return. Grow Amplified does not sell software licences.
Does the accounting software not check its own automatic postings?
Vendors build in controls, such as exceptions for review or approval steps. A review layer adds your office's rules, which apply equally to every client, and a log that exists independently of the program.
Who is liable if an automatic posting is wrong?
As we understand it, the fiduciary remains responsible towards the client for carrying out the mandate with due care, even when AI did the groundwork. Clarify the details with your legal adviser. In a dispute, an approval with a log shows what was checked.
What is a source reference?
The exact place where an exception sits: entry number, receipt, line and the rule that triggered it. It lets anyone check a flag without rereading the whole month.
Is this worth it for small clients?
Your own hours will tell. For one client, count for one month how long data entry takes today and how long a rule-based review takes. Then figures decide, not impressions.
15 years in banking and consulting, in transformation and finance operations. Today he builds review lanes with Grow Amplified: agents read and reconcile, a person approves, and a replay log records who decided what.