Home/Vera
Vera — Veracis's AI
IN DEVELOPMENT

Meet Vera.

Veracis's AI, being built to work inside the platform — on the same governed fund data, operating models and documents your teams use. Vera reads, compares and proposes. People decide.

Vera proposes. A person approves. The record shows both.

Where Vera works

Inside the work,
not beside it.

In a straight-through workflow, automation runs the routine steps. Vera is being built for the steps that need reading and judgement — inside the applications rather than bolted on as a chat window, so she works from structured, sourced data — and her output lands in the same approval paths as anyone else's. Her capabilities are in development and shown here as previews, not live claims.

Fund documents In development
In Fund Master: reading a prospectus or supplement into proposed umbrella, sub-fund, share-class and provider records, and comparing a KIID or factsheet with the record, every difference raised as a suggested change. Fund Master →
Operating models In development
In Operating Model Design: a panel beside every project to discuss the model, work through its issues and propose changes, previewed against your draft before anything is applied. Operating Model Design →
Fund supplements In development
For a new sub-fund: checking a draft supplement against the fund's master data and its operating model, and flagging what is missing or inconsistent for a person to resolve. Fund Master →
Illustrative examples

What working with
Vera is meant to feel like.

Two examples of the capabilities in development. The funds, model and people are fictitious.

Readying a fund supplement
Illustrative example · in development
CM
Check the draft supplement for the Flintrock Short Duration Bond Fund against the master and the operating model before it goes for sign-off.
I compared draft v0.3 with the umbrella's record in Fund Master and the umbrella's dealing model. Three points need a decision:
  • Dealing cut-off — the supplement says 12:00 Dublin time; the operating model's transfer-agent deadline is 11:00. One of them needs to change.
  • EUR Hedged Acc class — in the supplement, but there is no record of it in Fund Master. I can propose the class for approval.
  • Settlement — the supplement says T+3; the other sub-funds in the umbrella hold T+2. Please confirm it's intended.
Base currency, manager, providers, valuation point and fees match the master. I haven't changed anything.
CM
Propose the class, and raise the cut-off on the operating model.
Done, as proposals: a new share-class record waiting for a checker in Fund Master, and an issue on the dealing flow, linked to the transfer-agent cut-off step, for the model owner. The supplement itself is unchanged.
Illustrative example — capability in development; fictitious fund and data.
Reviewing an operating-model step
Illustrative example · in development
JD
Review step 6, "Issue instructions", on the dealing flow.
Step 6 sends settlement instructions from the transfer agent to the custodian over SWIFT, after the NAV is released. Suggestions, for you to accept or not:
  • RASCI — Responsible: TA operations; Support: custody operations. Accountable isn't set — that's an owner's call, so I've left it.
  • Deadline — the deadline schedule has a 16:00 custody instruction cut-off; I'd attach it to this step.
  • Risk — when the NAV is released late, this step runs close to that cut-off. Proposed for the risk analysis, rated medium.
Gap: no step confirms the custodian received the instructions. I've raised it as an issue rather than adding a step the source doesn't show.
JD
Apply the RASCI and the deadline. Hold the risk.
Applied to your draft — two changes, shown in the change list. Nothing is saved until you save the version.
Illustrative example — capability in development; fictitious model and data.
AI with discipline

Rules we don't bend.

Vera proposes; people approve
Nothing Vera suggests reaches a record, a model or a document until a person applies it — through the same maker-checker and versioning as any other change.
AI never calculates
Dates, figures and step numbers come from deterministic code. Vera reads results and source documents; she does not produce or approximate a number.
Redesign, never invent
Vera works from what the owner or a document provided. A possible gap is raised as a question for a person, not written in as content.
Talk to us

From data
to truth.

If you want to see how Vera is being built to work inside fund operations — and where the human stays in control — we'd like to talk.

Request a demo

Tell us a little about your organisation and we'll be in touch within one business day.

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

No commitment required Responses within one business day Design-partner conversations welcome