How an AI agent can produce a spend review queue with owners and evidence
This workflow gives an AI agent a defined job, a bounded set of records, and a result a person can review. The agent reads the relevant Ramp context, applies the rules in the prompt, and keeps the source behind every recommendation. It returns a proposed handoff rather than taking consequential actions on its own.
Can an AI agent produce a spend review queue with owners and evidence?
Yes. Start with the scope, date range, decision rules, and fields that identify the right records. The agent can collect the evidence, compare states or sources, mark conflicts and missing data, and organize the result around the outcome above. A reviewer then checks the matches and judgment calls before approving messages, record updates, bookings, purchases, publishing, or other write actions. The guide below shows the records, boundaries, prompt, and handoff needed for this specific workflow.
Separate missing evidence from violations
A Ramp spend audit starts with the selected transactions, period, policy version, owners, and exception rules. The agent can check receipts, memos, merchant, amount, category, approver, and stated business purpose against those rules. Every flag should show the exact transaction field and policy section that triggered it.
Missing context is not a confirmed violation. The agent should ask the cardholder or finance owner a precise question and keep deliberate exceptions separate from unexplained ones.
Example starter prompt
Audit Ramp transactions for [entity, cards, or owners] between [start] and [end] against policy [version].
Check receipts, memo, merchant, amount, category, approver, and business purpose using only these rules: [rules]. For every flag, include transaction ID, evidence, policy reference, and one owner question.
Do not reject expenses, lock cards, contact employees, or change records. Return a prioritized review queue.Review sampling and severity
Confirm that all transactions in scope were considered and that severity follows the supplied rules. Keep duplicate candidates, split charges, and missing receipts in distinct categories.
Questions this workflow answers
Which company-card expenses need a receipt, explanation, or policy decision before close?
The agent reviews every transaction in the selected entity, owner group, and period against a named policy version. It records transaction ID, date, amount, currency, merchant, cardholder, receipt state, memo, category, approval, and supplied business purpose. Each flag cites the exact rule it triggered. A missing receipt is a factual gap; an amount above a threshold is a review condition; neither proves misuse.
Different exception types stay separate. A likely duplicate needs comparison of merchant, amount, time, status, and any reversal. A split-charge pattern needs the team’s written aggregation rule and a defined time window. A policy-approved exception should not return every week as unexplained spend. The agent preserves the approver and reason so finance can distinguish a deliberate decision from missing context.
Owner questions should be answerable. “Please explain” becomes a request for the client, project, attendee, or receipt tied to a specific charge. Merchant names do not establish business purpose, and weekend timing does not establish personal use. Severity follows the policy, not the model’s view of what looks unusual.
The final queue shows coverage totals, categories, evidence, policy references, owner questions, and due dates if the team supplies them. Finance can accept documentation, confirm an exception, or escalate an item while keeping that decision distinct from the original flag. Expense rejection, card controls, employee contact, and accounting changes remain human actions after review.
The handoff should state which items are factual gaps, possible exceptions, or confirmed rule matches. Finance makes the final decision.
The rules need enough context to avoid turning every unusual charge into a violation. A hotel above the nightly guideline may have a documented conference exception; a split restaurant bill may cover a group and require an attendee list; a software renewal may belong to a procurement process rather than an individual receipt chase. The agent can quote the policy version, compare the transaction and submitted evidence, and classify the issue as missing documentation, apparent rule match, approved exception, duplicate candidate, or owner question. It should preserve amount, merchant, date, cardholder, memo, receipt, category, and approval history. Finance then sees both the trigger and the facts that might resolve it.