Claude for HR and finance: three document and expense review exercises

Start with a short document and a clearly bounded task

For HR and finance work, try three separate tasks: finding information, comparing records with rules and organising matters that need review. Every answer should have a source reference.

This example uses a fictional travel policy and six fictional expense claims from Pasukan Operasi Seri. The rates are designed for the exercise; they are not official government or employer rates. Use the reference output to check calculations and their match with the sample policy.

Attach the TXT policy and CSV records to a Claude conversation if the feature is available on your account. Anthropic lists both formats as supported files. Use these examples to prepare material for human review.

Exercise 1: extract rules with their references

The sample policy has five sections. P1 covers private-vehicle travel, P2 hotels, P3 meals, P4 incomplete documentation and P5 approval. Ask Claude to build a rules table before reading every claim. If the comparison criteria are extracted incorrectly, the final table may look organised while applying the wrong conditions.

Check conditions and exceptions alongside the rates. In this example, mileage needs a journey record, but P1 does not require a fuel receipt. Applying one rule that “everything needs a receipt” would flag records that should be checked differently.

Read only the sample travel policy.
Build a table: section | claim type | rate or limit | required documents | details to confirm.
Keep units such as km, nights and days.
State approval requirements separately.
If the policy does not mention something, write “Not stated in the sample policy”.
Do not add rules from another organisation or source.

Exercise 2: compare claims without approving them

Once the policy table has been reviewed, add the six CSV records. Ask for one output row per ID so no record disappears during summarisation. Separate the amount requested, reference calculation, documentation issues and approval status. One claim can have more than one point requiring review.

Use phrases such as “within the stated numerical limit” or “awaiting documents”, according to the evidence. “Approved” goes beyond this exercise because actual approval requires the organisation’s process. Even when an amount is within the limit, other conditions may still be incomplete.

Compare every ID in the CSV with the reviewed sample policy.
Output: ID | amount requested | reference calculation | document/approval issue | policy section | review action.
Do not change the source data or approve or reject payment.
Keep all six IDs even when information is incomplete.
Show the calculations for mileage, hotels and meals. Distinguish a numerical limit from an approved amount.

Use the six cases to test the answer’s accuracy

The total amount requested is RM953. That is the total requested in the file, not the amount that should be paid. Ask the AI to show how it adds the rows, then check with a spreadsheet or calculator. An independent check helps uncover mistakes hidden behind a convincing explanation.

C004 shows why one label is not enough: the receipt is missing, and the RM55 amount is also RM5 above the sample limit for one day. C006 is within the numerical limit for two nights, but manager approval has not been recorded. Both need follow-up, for different reasons.

Exercise 3: draft an accurate, courteous follow-up memo

Use the corrected review table to prepare a follow-up memo. The memo should state what information is needed rather than accuse the claimant of wrongdoing. Keep the sample IDs so readers can match each request to its record.

A suitable sentence for C004 is: “Please provide the receipt for record C004 for further review. The RM55 amount also exceeds the sample daily limit of RM50; please provide an explanation for review.” This separates missing documentation from a numerical issue without claiming that the expense has been rejected.

For C006, ask for the manager’s approval record. Do not say that two nights are disallowed simply because one night has a RM220 limit. Units, quantities and the available evidence determine how a matter should be described.

Prepare a follow-up memo draft from the verified review table.
Use professional, neutral English.
Group requests by claim ID.
State the document or explanation still needed and the relevant sample policy section.
Do not say a payment has been approved, rejected or sent.
Do not invent a response deadline.

Make source references part of the workflow

For organisational use, establish which policy version is in force and who makes the decision. Keep source material and review output separate. If the policy changes, repeat the comparison against the new version and clearly identify the older result.

For a further exercise, change one condition in a copy of the policy and check which records are affected. Keep the data unchanged so you can identify the cause of the difference. Also try a record with missing information; the AI should ask about it or flag it.

This exercise develops document summarisation, comparison and follow-up communication skills. Decisions about employees or payments remain with the responsible people.