JP–2026–05

Jay Patel — AI Systems Engineer

I build AI agents that have to earn the authority to act — not assume it.

Five shipped systems across finance, legal, and operations, all built on the same rule: the model recommends and explains; deterministic code decides; a human signs off. Every step is written somewhere nobody — including me — can quietly edit it later.

Get in touch ↗ Read the case files ↓

The Standard — applied to every system below

An AI agent doesn't get to move money, approve an invoice, or overwrite a clause just because it sounds confident. It recommends. A deterministic check decides. A human signs the exception. If a system can't show its work end‑to‑end after the fact, it doesn't ship.

Case Files — 05 systems, one rule

What that rule looks like in production

CASE 01 · FLAGSHIP · LIVE DEMO

ClauseKinetic Engine

SECURITY-HARDENED POST-LAUNCH

An AI contract-intelligence engine for supply-chain exceptions: it reads contract amendments, resolves conflicting clauses by effective date and precedence, and prices penalty exposure in real time. Before I called it done, I built a chaos-injection suite to deliberately corrupt OCR numbers, plant contradictory amendments, and flood the review queue with 100 low-value events — specifically to see whether the ranking and precedence logic would survive an adversary, not just a demo dataset. When I did a pre-launch security pass on my own deployment, I found the approve/reject endpoints had no auth and open CORS — so I closed both before sharing the link, not after.

FastAPIPostgresHybrid RAGChaos testing
View live demo ↗
CASE 02 Finance Arc · Part I

AuditLedger

100% SEEDED-ERROR CATCH RATE

An invoice reconciliation agent for accounts-payable teams, built around one rule: the AI recommends, it never decides. A deterministic three-way match — pure Python, zero LLM — checks price, quantity, tax math, and duplicates against the PO and goods receipt. A Primary Agent classifies the invoice and explains why; an independent Critic Agent checks that reasoning against the match results and vendor risk history without ever overriding it. Every step writes to an append-only, hash-chained log that can be replayed without re-running the pipeline. Against 100 synthetic invoices with errors seeded across five categories, it caught all of them — while still auto-clearing 60% of clean invoices outright.

PythonMulti-agent (Primary/Critic)Hash-chained audit log
Repo link — ask Jay
CASE 03 Finance Arc · Part II

ReconcileAI

95.9% MATCH RATE ON FRAUD SCENARIO

A month-end close reconciliation engine for GL-to-bank matching — the part of close that typically eats 6 to 10 business days. An Extractor agent normalizes messy statement data; an Auditor agent runs exact and fuzzy matching and flags anomalies; a Governor agent applies materiality thresholds and escalation logic and keeps an immutable audit trail. The LLM only ever explains — it never approves, rejects, or edits a record. Validated against 60 automated tests covering duplicates, timing differences, FX rounding, and missing entries: 97.5% match rate on a clean month, 88.8% on a deliberately messy one, 95.9% even on a seeded fraud scenario.

PythonStreamlitSQLite · hash-chained log
View repository ↗
CASE 04 Finance Arc · Part III

StratBrief AI

ZERO NUMERIC DRIFT, ENFORCED

Turns SEC filings — 10-Ks, 8-Ks, earnings transcripts — into a one-page, board-ready strategic memo with a citation on every number, in minutes instead of the day an analyst would spend on it. A five-stage pipeline fetches EDGAR filings, extracts risk factors and MD&A with citation metadata attached at every stage, has Claude analyze variance and tone shifts year over year, and synthesizes a schema-validated memo. The last stage is a deterministic audit pass: it resolves every citation and checks every number against source — and if anything has drifted, it forces a re-synthesis before the memo ships, not after someone reads it.

Pythonsec-parserPydantic28 tests
View repository ↗
CASE 05 · OUTSIDE THE FINANCE ARC

ShiftProof AI (Rostrix)

528,000 SIMULATED FAILURES RUN

A staffing-planning tool for appointment-based businesses that spends as much effort trying to break its own schedule as it does building it. It forecasts demand, sizes a staffing plan with a real safety cushion, and scores no-show risk per booking — then runs 528,000 simulated bad days to find exactly where that plan fails, and writes the recovery playbook in advance. Every number on screen is tagged MEASURED, ESTIMATED, or ASSUMPTION — it will not claim an operating history it doesn't have, and an internal auditor re-runs the production math on every plan before it's trusted.

PythonMonte Carlo simulationSelf-audit layer
Repo link — ask Jay

How this actually gets built

AI writes the first draft. I'm the one who has to trust it.

Every system above was built working closely with an AI coding agent — that's not hidden here, and it shouldn't be. The part that's mine is the judgment: deciding where a model is allowed to have an opinion and where it isn't, designing the checks that catch it when it's wrong, and reviewing what actually shipped instead of assuming it's fine because it ran.

A concrete example, not a claim Right before making ClauseKinetic's link public, I ran a security pass on my own deployment and found the approve/reject endpoints had no authentication and CORS was wide open — anyone with the link could have mutated the demo data. I closed both: a shared-secret gate on the mutating routes, origin-restricted CORS, and I verified the fix live before sending the link to anyone.