Every transaction checked, not a sample.




The Problem
Most tax teams can't review every transaction by hand, so they check a sample and hope the rest holds up. An error in the untested majority isn't found until an authority looks by then it's a penalty, not a fix.

The Solution
Every transaction gets the same substantive check, not a sample, so nothing sits undiscovered until an authority finds it.
How GraphBit VAT Validation solves it
Every transaction, not a sample
The same substantive check runs on 100% of transactions (not the 1-5% a manual review can reach) because the engine's cost per check doesn't scale with headcount.
Says “requires review,” not a guess
Cases the system can't decide on its own (ambiguous positions, missing facts) are flagged as requires review or incomplete, with the reasoning attached, and routed to your expert. Nothing is silently passed through.
Grounded in the law as it stood
Every verdict cites the specific provision and its effective date, so a check made today can be replayed exactly as it happened, years later.
100%
of transactions checked, not a sample
Weeks → days
typical audit-cycle compression once every transaction is checked automatically
~90%
Majority of transactions auto-validated with no exceptions raised, so expert time concentrates on the cases that actually need it

Your VAT position, at a glance
Every transaction rolled up into a single view, so you always know how much VAT is at risk, and every flagged case goes to a human, never an automated guess

Correct
The treatment holds. Documented with the derivation, which is evidence that it was reviewed.

The law changes. Nothing runs until you approve it
Official sources are monitored continuously, so a new ruling arrives already drafted and linked to the provisions it touches, ready for your expert to sign off before it goes live.

Ask, instead of searching
Ask a plain question, the way you would ask a colleague, about risk, readiness, or rule coverage, and get a straight answer pulled from your own data instead of another screen to page through.
Frequently asked questions
Correct means the treatment holds, documented with the derivation, which is evidence that it was reviewed. Needs Review means a specific finding with the provision and the reasoning, correctable before the invoice goes out rather than in the audit. Clarification Required means the case cannot be decided cleanly, for example the allocation in a chain transaction — it goes to your expert with the facts prepared and the defensible readings set out, mostly when something is missing for a sound result. The system names exactly what, instead of guessing on evidence.