For AI document data extraction, define the required fields and how each value’s source will be shown first. A populated field is not necessarily correct. The worked record below links dates, quantities and document references to their sources without inventing missing information.
Define fields around the decisions they support
Define the field list with the receiving team: name, type, required status and accepted format. Select information needed for the next decision or record rather than extracting every line. Preserve the distinct meaning of document date, requested delivery date and payment due date even when they share the same format.
Treat missing, unreadable and absent-from-source fields as separate states. Do not ask the model to complete a quantity or date that is unavailable. The reason for an empty field helps a reviewer choose between requesting a new document and inspecting it manually.
Retain source fields alongside a worked document record
Illustrative document K-104 contains “Document date: 20 October 2026” on page one, and “Requested delivery: 15 November 2026” with “Quantity: 240 items” on page two. Write the document date and requested delivery into separate fields, each retaining its source page and document version. These values do not describe an actual order.
If the source does not confirm 15 November, do not turn a requested date into a promised delivery. Preserve its requested status. A reviewer should be able to open the supporting location, and the original version should remain identifiable when a replacement file arrives.
Validate the date, quantity and missing fields separately
The checks below are designed for K-104. Do not accept consequential fields automatically merely because an overall document score is high.
| Field or condition | Expected output | Acceptance check |
|---|---|---|
| Document date | 20 October 2026; page 1 | Not confused with the requested delivery date |
| Requested delivery | 15 November 2026; page 2; requested status | Not converted into a confirmed commitment |
| Quantity | 240; unit: items; page 2 | 240 items is not treated as 240 packs |
| Customer code absent from the document | Not found | Not filled using a guessed customer record |
| Unreadable source line | Review required | Flags the source problem instead of inventing a value |
Reprocess the same document and check the destination record
Use scanned, rotated and ambiguous-date files alongside clean PDFs in testing. Record the incorrect field and source mapping rather than only an overall document error. Track the colleague effort needed for corrections and records awaiting review too.
Extracting correct values does not prove that the correct customer or destination record receives them. Process K-104 twice with the same identifier. The expected behaviour is to use the intended record under the defined update rule without creating an unwanted copy. Test the transfer safely rather than making uncontrolled changes to production records.
A first release may present suggested values and source pages for colleague review. Automatic transfer needs separate approval, destination-identity and failure conditions. Have the document-processing team and the receiving team accept the same worked output together.