AI Governance & Assurance · live demo

The flux writer that must cite the ledger or say it found nothing.

Variance commentary is the narrative half of the management review control, and it eats 7 to 12 hours of GL archaeology every close. The tempting shortcut is to let a model write it, which produces the exact failure auditors now probe: a plausible story with no line behind it. This demo draws the trust boundary differently. Code computes every variance and applies a visible materiality rule; the model may only phrase sentences over ledger lines the code pre-assembled, with citation coverage computed in code; where the lines cannot explain the movement, the mandated output is no explanation found in the ledger, and the flux routes to a named human instead of a paragraph. Public dataset: Connecticut Open Expenditures · FY2024 vs FY2025

Materiality, applied in code and shown here: movement of at least $5.0M and at least 10% of prior year (new categories: the dollar test alone) · citation coverage floor 80%, below it the writer must abstain
·
variance cells computed
·
material fluxes flagged
·
avg citation coverage
·
mandated abstention

The flux board · FY2024 → FY2025

click any material flux to draft its commentary

material rows are clickable · grey rows fall below the rule and get no commentary · this extract deliberately omits that flux's largest vendor lines, so the writer must abstain

Source: State of CT, Open Expenditures, Ledger Current · Public Domain · State Comptroller · extract fetched · · amounts in USD · cash-basis government expenditures, so the month-end close framing here is an analogy and is labelled as one · the "model" is a deterministic stub, so every run reproduces exactly