Selected work
Document InsightsEnterprise document intelligence

Making enterprise AI understandable, reviewable and trustworthy.

Organizations process thousands of contracts, invoices and reports every day. Machine learning can extract the structured information in seconds, but business users still need confidence before they act on it. The challenge wasn’t building a smarter model. It was designing a workflow that helped people verify AI-generated information quickly, understand where it came from, and confidently correct it when necessary.

The document

…the total amount payable is €14,230 excluding VAT.

Role
Product Design · UX Strategy · Interaction Design · Prototyping
Context
Enterprise document intelligence platform
Collaboration
Product managers · Machine-learning engineers
The thesis
Trust is verified, not claimed
01 The product

A platform that reads business documents so people don’t have to.

The model comes pre-trained and keeps learning from every correction. Instead of manually reading every page, users receive predicted values, and before those values flow into downstream business systems, a person reviews and approves them.

Document Insights review interface: the source document on the left with highlighted extractions, and predicted fields with confidence scores on the right
The review interface: predicted values on the right, each tied to its place in the source document on the left.
Supplier
Siemens AG
98%
Invoice number
482913
95%
Invoice date
18 Jan 2025
89%
Total amount
€14,230
81%
02 The challenge

Users didn’t distrust the AI because it made mistakes.

They distrusted it because they couldn’t quickly verify whether a prediction was correct. Even high-confidence predictions were manually checked against the original document.

The same loop, in every review session
1

Read the extracted value.

2

Search through the document.

3

Find the matching sentence.

4

Confirm the prediction.

5

Return to the extraction list.

6

Repeat.

For a document with dozens of fields, that context-switching became the slowest part of the workflow. The problem wasn’t accuracy. It was verification.

The design goal

Reduce the effort required to answer one simple question. Every design decision that followed supported this objective, and nothing else.

“Why did the AI make this prediction?”

Design decision 01

Keep every prediction connected to its source.

Instead of forcing users to search through long documents, selecting an extracted value immediately highlights its original location. The prediction and its supporting evidence stay visible at the same time, so instead of hunting for information, users simply verify it.

Invoice_482913_Siemens.pdfSelect a value ↔ see its source
Source document
Extracted values

Try it: select any value to highlight the exact sentence it came from.

Design decision 02

Make uncertainty visible.

A confidence percentage alone rarely helps a user decide where to focus. So the interface uses visual priority instead, guiding attention toward the predictions where human judgement adds the most value.

98%
Approved automatically

The model and the document agree. It clears without a human ever opening it.

81%
Worth reviewing

Plausible, but not certain — surfaced for a quick human glance.

54%
Requires confirmation

The model is unsure. This is exactly where human judgement adds the most value.

Rather than asking users to interpret a score, the interface says this one deserves your attention, and lets the confident ones clear quietly.

Design decision 03

Make corrections part of the learning process.

Review isn’t the end of the workflow. It’s how the model improves. When a prediction is wrong, users update the value while the original evidence is preserved. The correction is immediately linked back to the document, creating high-quality feedback for future training without interrupting the flow.

AI prediction
Supplier
Siemens
54% · needs confirmation
Corrected by reviewer
Supplier
Siemens AG
✓ Verified · fed back to training
Design principles

Four principles guided every interaction.

01
Every prediction should be explainable.
02
Evidence should always be one interaction away.
03
The interface should guide attention instead of demanding it.
04
Correcting AI should feel like reviewing a document — not debugging software.
Outcome

Rather than asking people to trust AI, the product gives them the tools to verify it.

By reducing context switching, connecting every prediction to its source, and making uncertainty actionable, the review workflow becomes faster, easier to understand, and better suited for enterprise environments where accuracy matters. It shows how interaction design can make complex AI systems feel transparent, not by hiding uncertainty, but by giving people the information they need to make confident decisions.

Correcting AI should feel like reviewing a document, not debugging software.

Building something complex? Let’s make it clear.

See more work