Module 1 · Start safely
Figures the model makes up
In short
A model predicts text, so it can add wrongly and invent neat figures. Treat every figure the model typed as unverified: recompute, cross-foot, compare with the source.
After this lesson you can
- Explain why a language model can miscalculate and invent financial figures that look reasonable
- Run a figure verification routine: recompute, cross-foot and compare with the source
- Mark every figure in an AI-made draft as unverified until you have computed it yourself
Terms in this lesson
Understand
A large language model works by predicting the next word. To it, numbers are words too. When you ask it to "add up this column", the model does not run a calculator the way a spreadsheet does; it writes the figure most likely to appear in that position. For short sums it is often right. For long tables, percentages of percentages, or numbers with many digits, it can get a digit wrong, swap the order, or round silently. How this works is explained in the text prediction machine lesson.
There is a mistake more dangerous than a wrong sum: an invented figure. This is one form of hallucination. Ask a model to write monthly report commentary without giving it the figures, and it may write "revenue rose 8.4% on last month" with great confidence. That figure comes from no data at all. It appears because report commentary usually contains percentages like that. The same happens when a model is asked to "fill in" a table with gaps, estimate a balance, or state a rate.
In finance work, a wrong figure rarely looks wrong. It is written neatly, with correct thousands separators and two decimals. People read financial reports with trust because the figures there have usually been checked. That is why figures made by a model must be treated differently from figures that come out of the accounting system.
The answer is a figure verification routine you run every time, not only when suspicious. Its four steps:
- Recompute by another method. Total it with a spreadsheet formula, a calculator, or from the accounting system's report. Do not ask the same model to recompute; the same method repeats the same mistake.
- Cross-foot. The total of all rows must equal the total of all columns. Totals by branch and totals by product must arrive at the same figure. If they differ, a row was missed or counted twice.
- Compare with the source. Every figure in a report must have an origin you can point to: a system report, a bank statement, an invoice or a working file. A figure with no origin is removed or flagged.
- Test reasonableness. Compare with last month and with a rough estimate. An electricity cost that suddenly rises tenfold may be right, but it needs an explanation.
How to recompute and test spreadsheet formulas is taught in the checking figures and spreadsheets lesson. In this track you apply it to finance work: reconciliations, reports, invoices.
One more habit, the simplest: flag. When you receive a draft from AI, such as report commentary, an invoice summary or an explanation of differences, colour or mark every figure in it. The mark comes off only after the figure is matched with its source. A draft that still has flagged figures is not sent to anyone. Better still, ask the model from the start to write a marker such as ‹figure› instead of a number, then fill in the figures yourself from the system. That way no invented figure can slip through, because every figure in the final document passes through your hands and has a source you can point to when someone asks.
Before
The prompt
Write short commentary for our October financial report for the board.
What came back
Example of bad output; figures and references invented by the model, do not use: In October, revenue rose 8.4% on September to Rp 1.32 billion, driven by sales of the main product. Operating expenses fell 3.1% thanks to efficiencies...
After
The prompt
Goal: I need a frame for monthly report commentary for the board. Reader: board members reading for two minutes before the meeting. Material: no figures yet; I will fill them in myself from the accounting system. Limits: do not write any number or percentage; use markers such as ‹revenue-this-month› and ‹change-percent›. Do not guess causes. Shape: three short paragraphs: revenue, expenses, cash; each with one figure sentence and one cause sentence that I fill in. Check: list every marker at the end so I know which figures to pull.
What came back
Revenue: Revenue this month was ‹revenue-this-month›, ‹up-or-down› ‹change-percent› on last month. Main cause: ‹revenue-cause›. Expenses: ... Cash: ... Markers to fill: revenue-this-month, up-or-down, change-percent, revenue-cause, ...
What changed
- The first version holds invented figures and causes. No data was sent, so every figure is certainly made up.
- The second forbids figures and asks for markers, so every figure in the final report comes from the system.
- The marker list at the end becomes a checklist for verification.
Common mistake
- Mistake
- Asking the same AI to "check the total again" after suspecting a wrong figure.
- Why it hurts
- The model may repeat the same figure confidently, or swap it for another wrong one. You feel you have checked, yet no real calculation has happened.
- Do this instead
- Recompute with a tool that really calculates: a spreadsheet formula, a calculator or a system report. Then cross-foot and compare with the source.
Try
Open each card: why is this figure suspect?
Long sums with many digits are where a model most often gets one digit wrong. Total it with a spreadsheet formula.
There was no material, so the figure is invented. Delete it and pull it from the system.
An impossible date is a sign the model filled a pattern rather than reading the document. Match every date with its invoice.
The cross-foot fails. It may be rounding or a miscalculation; find out which before using it.
The verification routine for one monthly report, in order
Step 1 of 6
Flag
Flag every figure in the draft that did not come from the system.
An AI commentary draft says "payroll costs rose 6.2% to Rp 48.3 million". You gave it the expense table but no percentage. What is the next step?
Take home
Figure verification routine
- Every figure in an AI-made draft is flagged until matched.
- Totals are recomputed with a formula, calculator or system report.
- Row totals equal column totals.
- Every figure has a source you can point to.
- Spikes against last month have a written explanation.
- Figures with no origin are deleted, not left in.
What went wrong for us
Every figure from a model is recomputed before use
- Context
- When we use AI to help write reports, usage summaries or commentary on figures, the model writes figures in the same neat format as figures from the system.
- What tends to go wrong
- Our working habit: no figure made by a model goes into a report, a bill or a message to a customer before it is recomputed from the data with a tool that really calculates and matched with its source.
- What it costs if ignored
- A wrong figure in a financial report or a bill damages trust faster than an awkward sentence. An invented figure does not even have a source to correct.
- Root cause
- A language model predicts text. It can add wrongly and can fill in figures that sound reasonable when no material is given.
- How we do it
- We ask the model to write markers, not figures, then fill the figures from the system. For figures a model has already written, we recompute with a formula or query and cross-foot.
- The rule we keep
- Every figure in an outgoing document has an origin we can point to. Figures without an origin are deleted.
The lessonA figure typed by a model is unverified until someone computes it themselves.
What it means for your workWhen AI helps with your report, ask for markers for the figures and fill them in yourself from the accounting system.
