About
Built by people who have signed audit reports, and people who build software.
Both, deliberately. Audit tools built only by technologists get the workflow wrong in ways that are obvious to a practitioner in the first five minutes. Tools built only by auditors tend not to get built.
Why we started
The work did not get smaller. The teams did.
India has hundreds of thousands of practising Chartered Accountants and a statutory audit requirement that does not flex with the number of people available to do it. Every September, firms across the country compress months of work into weeks, and the work that gets compressed hardest is the part that requires the least judgment — vouching, matching, reconciling, chasing documents, and assembling working papers after the fact.
That work is repetitive, rule-governed and enormous in volume. It is exactly what software should have absorbed a decade ago. It did not, because the tools that could do it were built for other markets, priced for other firms, and designed around data that Indian mid-market clients do not keep.
The opportunity is not to replace auditors. It is to stop spending the scarcest professional resource in the country on work that a computer can do exactly, every time, across the whole population rather than a sample of twenty-five.
How this is built
Two disciplines, deliberately in the same room: people who have prepared and reviewed working papers under deadline, and people who build software for a living. Neither builds this alone — an audit tool designed only by engineers gets the workflow wrong in ways a practitioner spots immediately, and one designed only by auditors tends not to ship.
Practice
Chartered Accountants who have signed working papers, shaping what the product tests and how a finding is worded.
Engineering
Software built to the constraints of Indian mid-market data — Tally exports, scanned invoices, GSTR-2B — rather than adapted from a Western audit tool.
Named profiles are not published yet. We would rather describe the roles behind the product honestly than fill this space with stock photography or titles nobody can verify.
What we believe
Five positions, and we will be held to them.
These are not values in the decorative sense. Each one rules out something a competitor does, and each one costs us something.
Evidence before assertion
If the system states something, it can show you why. A finding without a traceable chain is an opinion, and we are not in the business of supplying those.
Deterministic work stays deterministic
Arithmetic is the one thing computers have always done exactly. Handing it to a language model because language models are fashionable would be a regression, not progress.
The auditor signs, not the system
No screen in the product, and no sentence on this site, implies otherwise. Professional judgment is not a bottleneck to be removed; it is the service being sold.
Say what the system did not check
Silence about limitations is how software loses an auditor's trust permanently. We would rather show a gap than fill it convincingly.
Claim nothing we cannot substantiate
No invented certifications, no borrowed regulatory legitimacy, no customer statistics we have not measured. This is why parts of this website say 'not yet'.
Our position on AI in audit
A short statement, so there is no ambiguity.
“Software performs the repetitive audit work. Auditors remain in control of professional judgment.”
We do not believe an audit opinion can be automated, and we would not build towards it if we did. An audit opinion is a professional taking personal responsibility for a conclusion. Software can gather the evidence, perform the testing and organise the file. It cannot assume the responsibility, and any vendor implying otherwise is selling something they cannot deliver.
Come and argue with us.
If you are a practising auditor and you think we have got something wrong about how the work actually happens, that conversation is more valuable to us than a sales call. We would genuinely like to hear it.