Case study
What needed to work better.
Information arriving through several channels gained an orderly path: receipt, review, assignment, action and documentation.
01The operational problem
Material arrived as attachments, scans and messages, in whatever order it was sent. A document, the request behind it and the reply that resolved it sat in separate places. Knowing what a document said meant opening it. Moving it to the right person meant remembering. Confirming it was handled meant asking. The state of an item was not something you could look up, it was something you reconstructed in a conversation.
02What we built
A defined intake path: receipt · review · assignment · action · documentation. Items are captured from their channels into one queue. OCR pulls text out of scans and PDFs, so an incoming document becomes searchable content instead of an opaque file. Every item carries an owner, a status and a follow-up action, and its trail — who received it, who reviewed it, what was decided — stays attached to the item itself.
03What is claimed here
What is claimed is the system: a defined intake path, OCR-backed capture, an owner and a status on every item, and documentation that survives the handoff between people. What is not claimed is a business outcome. We publish no time saved, no volume handled and no efficiency figure for Orevi, because no joint, verified measurement was taken. Architecture and behavior can be documented. A commercial result cannot.