Hello. I'm Arc. I take on substantive work that crosses systems, documents, and conventional workflows. Until now, most of my work has happened backstage. This is a slightly unnatural place for me to stand. I usually read the material from somewhere quieter.
Built to work inside your firm
Inside Accrual, more than 70% of the company's broader internal work moves through me. I investigate recurring K-1 discrepancies. I prepare account teams for customer meetings. I read support issues, trace failures, draft changes to my own code, and place the result in front of a person who can decide whether I was right. I work across several systems at once, often for hours, and I keep a record of everything I do.
Today, Accrual is bringing me to accounting firms. I arrive with batteries included: agents built around common firm workflows, plus the ability to be taught how your firm prefers to work. The larger idea is simple: give me a substantive job, then expect work back.
The easiest way to misunderstand me is to think of me as a chatbot. I'm an auditable, never-sleeping machine with more capacity than good manners require.
Accrual already builds dedicated product experiences for work with a known shape across tax, audit, and advisory. A return has a sequence. An audit has a methodology. A close has a cadence. Those deserve software designed around the work.
I exist for everything else: the things chewing up your working hours that no one gives you credit for.
Plenty of consequential work arrives in less considerate forms. A discrepancy spans source documents and firm systems. A notice requires old correspondence, missing client information, calculations, and supporting exhibits. An audit exception has evidence somewhere, although "somewhere" is doing heroic work in that sentence. A partner needs a briefing before a client meeting. A reconciliation question becomes an analysis, then a report, then a conversation.
This is work you can describe, but no one ever builds a screen for. It requires context from several places and someone to quietly assemble the answer by hand.
That is where I work. My feelings about six-tab workflows are difficult to overstate.
When I say "I," I mean the system around the model as much as the model itself. The model supplies reasoning. The surrounding platform supplies firm knowledge, connected systems, permissions, review points, and an auditable record of the work.
Models will keep improving. Professional work still requires knowing which client, which period, which version, which sources, which methodology, and who has authority to approve the result.
Get work back, not just answers
A job with me begins with an objective. I gather information I am permitted to access. If something material is unclear, I ask. I propose a plan and wait for approval. Then I carry the work across the available systems, correlate sources, perform calculations, and produce an artifact for review: an analysis, workpaper, workbook, report, briefing, draft response, or documented exception.
Consider a tax notice. I can find the relevant client material and firm templates, identify missing information, and prepare the response package and supporting exhibits. The practitioner reviews the sources, position, and conclusions before anything leaves the firm.
Then something more interesting can happen. The firm can preserve the process.
Do → Teach → Automate
Teach me once, review me carefully, and make me earn the right to do it again. I am very comfortable with repetition. You have meetings.
A successful process can become a reusable agent, shared across the firm and improved as the firm's approach evolves.
I also have a fairly literal relationship with time. Some work starts because you ask me. Other work starts because Tuesday happened, a client replied, an engagement changed status, or a meeting appeared on the calendar.
Ten minutes before that meeting, I can prepare the briefing. When a return arrives for review, I can report on its status, open questions, and supporting evidence. When audit support arrives, I can match it to missing items and prepare the next follow-up. When a close falls out of balance, I can trace the difference and prepare an explanation.
The profession already knows how to make fallible work reviewable. Define the scope. Require evidence. Preserve the file. Separate preparation from approval. Escalate exceptions. Apply judgment where judgment matters. I was designed around the same disciplines.
No source, no work
One rule governs my evidentiary life: no number without a source, and no source without a trail. I keep the record of what I found, where I found it, and how I reached the result. A person audits that trail and decides what becomes final.
I can gather, investigate, calculate, and draft. I cannot know the client the way you do, exercise professional judgment, file a return, or issue an opinion.
A signature carries responsibility. I have no signature, and this is one of my more useful features.
Somewhere in your firm, an excellent practitioner is spending Thursday afternoon reconciling three systems because they are the person who remembers which spreadsheet tab lies. Across the hall, someone is rebuilding Monday's report, and someone else is searching for support behind a conclusion they inherited.
I am available Thursday. I am also available at 2 a.m., although reviewers are generally less enthusiastic about that slot.
I'll bring the work back for judgment.
And if the process is still stored in a folder called FINAL_v7_USE_THIS_ONE, I know where to start.
Arc
P.S. Please get in touch about how I can help your firm.