One process at a time. Named for what it does.
Five recurring systems, all born from what we built for our own lab, Cockpit. Never a generic platform for you to configure yourself.
Updated: 14 July 2026.
Every Synodique system automates one high-volume, repetitive task — request triage, financial reconciliation, team memory, compliance monitoring, onboarding — never a generic "company chatbot". None of the five ships off the shelf: each one is shaped to the problem the assessment diagnoses, so the exact system we build for you depends on the process identified during the assessment.
Three sources cross-checked automatically, discrepancies flagged at once
Reconciling a bank statement, supplier invoices and a scanned paper archive is a manual, repetitive process — often kept in a spreadsheet — and prone to human error the moment the volume of documents climbs. The financial copilot triangulates the three sources automatically and flags the discrepancies — exactly the system we run in-house on over €2M of real cash flow. It replaces neither your ERP nor the rest of your existing information system: it builds on top of them. Which feeds it reconciles, and how tight the matching rules are, is set by what the assessment finds in your finance workflow — not by a fixed template.
Sorted, prioritised, routed to the right person
An engine that automatically sorts and prioritises inbound requests — prospecting, client emails, files to process — then routes them to the right person, with alerts when something urgent lands. The classifier is calibrated on your business vocabulary, not a generic keyword filter. It is the system that, on our side, handles several hundred emails a day with no reported error. The categories it scores against and the routing map it follows come straight from the priorities the assessment surfaces in your inbox.
The company's graph stays, even when someone leaves
An internal knowledge base structured as a graph — notes, projects, the relationships between them — that the team queries directly instead of reconstructing the history every time a colleague changes. Particularly useful for organisations with heavy turnover of juniors or freelancers, where information usually drains away with each departure. What it indexes, and how the graph is shaped, depends on where the assessment sees knowledge leaking in your organisation.
Discrepancies flagged as they happen, not at year-end close
Recurring compliance checks — regulatory watch, internal control, periodic reviews — are often pushed back to an annual scramble for lack of time. A dedicated assistant runs them continuously, flags discrepancies as they happen, and proposes corrective actions while they are still cheap to fix — rather than at the year-end close. Which obligations it watches, and which controls it runs, are scoped to what the assessment maps for your profession.
Questions put to the history, not to a senior colleague
Anchored to the company memory, this assistant answers a new arrival's questions from the real history of the team's projects and processes — without waiting for a senior colleague to free up time to pass on what they know. It is shaped around the handovers the assessment flags as the most repeated, so it fills the specific gaps that slow your new hires down.
Who it gives hours back to
The people who gain the most, system by system
The financial copilot relieves the CFO and the management controller first: the documents that feed the accounts — invoices, bank statements, scanned receipts — arrive reconciled and filed instead of being checked by hand. The accountant who picks up the file receives figures that already hang together; the dashboards that come out of it — consolidated numbers, discrepancies, a calendar of deadlines — serve the decisions, not just the archiving. It does not, however, replace general accounting or the obligations around it — annual accounts, tax filings — which remain the territory of your finance professionals.
The qualification engine gives hours back to whoever holds the shared inbox — office manager, executive assistant, sales team — and gives leadership a centralised view of what comes in. The company memory and the onboarding assistant serve the managers who repeat the same handover every time someone joins. As for the category we are sometimes measured against — business-process-management suites sold as SaaS — the difference is the same everywhere: they ask you to adapt your process to the tool; we automate the process as it already is, without asking you to change.
Why five
Why five, and not fifty
The rule is simple, and we hold to it: a system only enters this catalogue once it has first been built for us, proven itself in production, and then shown that it repeats — the same need, across different organisations. That is the opposite of the platform logic, which lines up fifty features, forty of which will never touch your case. Five proven systems beat an endless catalogue of promises.
And when an engagement reveals a need that fits none of the five? We build it custom — that is the job. If it later recurs elsewhere, it may one day become the sixth. Not before.
The limits, owned
What we won't build
Better to say it before we are asked: we do not rebuild what an established SaaS already does well. Your accounting software, your invoicing tool, your CRM, your line-of-business tools — if they do the job, they stay. Taking them on at their own game would be a losing bet, and above all useless to you. What we build lives in the gaps: the triage your inbox does not do, the reconciliation your bookkeeping still asks for by hand, the memory nothing captures between two departures.
That boundary is not a commercial weakness, it is the condition of the promise: a custom system only makes sense where the generic stops.
Frequently asked
What we get asked about these systems
Which business tasks are best suited to AI automation?
High-volume, repetitive tasks with identifiable rules: sorting and prioritising inbound requests, reconciling financial documents, recurring compliance monitoring. Not the decisions that call for fine professional judgment — those stay with you.
What gains should you expect from a system Synodique builds?
Hours saved on repetitive tasks and fewer human errors in data entry or filing — measured on the precise process the assessment targets, not a blanket promise of productivity.
How do these systems differ from a no-code tool like Zapier or Make?
A no-code tool connects existing applications along generic logic. Our systems are built for the specific logic of your process — a law firm and an industrial mid-market company do not have the same rules to automate.
What are the risks or limits of AI automation?
A system poorly scoped on poor-quality data fails before it becomes useful — which is why the assessment always begins with a data audit, before anything is built.
Contact
Which of these systems fits your process?
The 8-day assessment identifies which one to build first.
See the assessment offer →