New·Argos now detects usage deviation across 100+ model endpoints See how →
Home / Use cases / Learning purchase decisions
Use case · BFSI and enterprise

One standard on every purchase request — and it gets sharper each batch.

Indirect procurement is high volume, hard to control, and reviewed by people applying slightly different standards on different days. Around 6% of it is avoidable. Closing that by hand at a billion dollars of spend is not realistic.

The problem

Why this queue costs what it costs.

Inconsistency is the real cost

Different reviewers, different parts of the organisation, different criteria — and nothing learning from decisions already made. Off-policy purchases, duplicates of existing contracts and poorly negotiated terms all slip through.

The target was 3%. The gap was manual.

Reviewing a billion dollars of requests consistently, without fatigue, is not something a team can do by reading.

How it works

What the agent does, and where the human stays.

Step 01

Review against everything at once

Each request checked against policy, past decisions, existing contracts and category benchmarks.

Step 02

Accept or escalate

Clear cases processed automatically within thresholds. Edge cases go to a buyer with a recommendation and the reasoning behind it.

Step 03

Capture every decision

Each confirmation or override becomes a training signal.

Step 04

Expand autonomy on evidence

As measured accuracy improves, procurement leadership raises the thresholds. The system running today handles more alone than the one deployed on day one.

Guardrails

The constraints that make it deployable.

These are not aspirations. They are enforced in the build, checked by the eval suite and visible in the audit trail.

01Autonomy thresholds set by category and value by procurement leadership, not by us.
02Every override captured, analysed and reported weekly for drift and fairness.
03No supplier is contacted by an agent; negotiations stay human.
04Model risk documentation (SR 11-7) ships with the build.
05Full decision trail per request for internal audit.
Measurement

What the sponsor sees every month.

The baseline is agreed with Finance before we start. These are the lines on the console — and what our outcome fee is read from.

Avoidable spend as % of total

Share of requests decided autonomously

Cycle time per request

Savings identified and realised

Override rate trend

Agents involved
Procurement Decision AgentSpend CategoriserSupplier Negotiation PrepOutcome Attribution AgentDrift & Quality Monitor
See each agent's inputs and guardrails →
Typical timeline

12 weeks to first production outcome

Blueprint and eval scaffolding by week 2, shadow mode by week 8, approve mode with a measured result by week 12 — then autonomy expands on evidence.

How AIM sequences it →
Let's talk

Tell us the number you need to move.

A 45-minute working session with an operator who has run the kind of work you are describing. You will get an honest read on where your programme stands and what it would take to move it.