The verifier receives this image, the candidate text, and its rendered image.
AN EXPERIMENT BY GUILIN ZHANG
The numbers add up.
Do they match the page?
An independent visual check for document automation. Explore real outputs from MiniCPM-OCR and OCR Jev, then decide what deserves a second look.
Inspect the evidence ↓01 / FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE
One source. Two different questions.
Inspect the exact candidate rendering
STRUCTURAL RULES
VISUAL CONSISTENCY SCORE
A 0–1 model score for agreement with the source pixels. Higher means stronger predicted agreement; it is not a calibrated guarantee.
FROZEN REVIEW POLICY
Open the audit trail: labels, model output and timing
02 / TEST THE TRADEOFF
More AI also means more review.
The frozen operating point
| Policy | Reviewed | Errors caught | Correct items reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rules | 3 / 80 | 3 / 3 | 0 |
| Rules + verifier | 16 / 80 | 3 / 3 | 13 |
In this pilot, rules caught every natural error. The verifier added 13 correct items to the review queue. Its extra value needs evidence on harder, representative data.
Try a different threshold
Exploratory view of the same held-out records. The published result uses the frozen calibration threshold.
Rules missed all 24 internally consistent currency and amount substitutions. Adding the verifier routed all 24 to review. These are designed probes, reported separately from natural OCR errors.
12 currency substitutions + 12 amount multiplications03 / FROM READING TO WORKFLOW
Keep visual correctness and business checks separate.
MiniCPM-OCR 1.0
1.3B parameters
Image → text
MiniCPM-OCR Jev
2B parameters
Image + text + render → score
Rules + threshold
Keep evidence attached
Human review when needed
Purchase order, receipt,
supplier and policy
Business validation
Supplier-invoice intake is a useful application for this pattern. Workday describes OCR, validation and exception handling in its public overview of automated invoice processing ↗. This is a personal experiment using synthetic data.
WATCH / FULL USD WORKFLOW · 1:45