Abstract

Order-to-cash (O2C) delays convert operational disruption into liquidity risk when delivered goods remain tied to unresolved invoices, unmatched remittances, or missing delivery evidence. This paper presents Financial Kinetic Stability, a deterministic agentic architecture for reducing working capital latency in legacy enterprise resource planning (ERP) environments. The proposed Legacy Bridge Architecture (LBA) uses retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to ground transformer-based reasoning in ERP metadata, shipping logs, bank feeds, customer remittance rules, and policy constraints. A deterministic validation layer then blocks any ledger write unless amount, proof-of-delivery, proof-of-payment, tax, authorization, and audit predicates are satisfied. The Resilient O2C Clearing (ROC) algorithm is evaluated through a reproducible simulation of 50,000 invoices, including 5,000 disrupted cases, for a synthetic Tier-2 aerospace-manufacturing O2C environment. To ensure robustness, the evaluation includes comprehensive parameter sensitivity testing across confidence thresholds. Compared with manual processing, rule-based robotic process automation, and non-grounded LLM baselines, LBA+ROC reduced mean working capital latency from 45.2 to 26.2 days, increased reconciliation accuracy to 99.8%, and lowered median processing time from 240.0 to 1.2 minutes per invoice. The results indicate that autonomous financial clearing is viable only when probabilistic reasoning is constrained by deterministic validation, zerotrust authorization, human escalation, and complete audit evidence.

References

• A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017.
• T. B. Brown et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020.
• P. Lewis et al., “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020.
• V. Karpukhin et al., “Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering,” in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 6769–6781, 2020.
• Y. A. Malkov and D. A. Yashunin, “Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 824–836, 2020.
• J. Johnson, M. Douze, and H. Jegou, “Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 535–547, 2021.
• S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao, “ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
• T. Schick et al., “Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2023.
• W. M. P. van der Aalst, Process Mining: Data Science in Action, 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2016.
• V. Khatri and C. V. Brown, “Designing data governance,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 148–152, 2010.
• R. Abraham, J. Schneider, and J. vom Brocke, “Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 49, pp. 424–438, 2019.
• S. Rose, O. Borchert, S. Mitchell, and S. Connelly, “Zero Trust Architecture,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-207, 2020.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0),” NIST AI 100-1, 2023.
• International Organization for Standardization, “ISO/IEC 23894:2023 Information technology–Artificial intelligence– Guidance on risk management,” 2023.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Security and privacy controls for information systems and organizations,” NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5, 2020.
• S. Amershi et al., “Software engineering for machine learning: A case study,” in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, pp. 291–300, 2019.
• B. Shneiderman, “Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe and trustworthy,” International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 495–504, 2020.
• R. Bommasani et al., “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021.
• L. Weidinger et al., “Ethical and social risks of harm from language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359, 2021.
• E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, “On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?,” in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 610–623, 2021.
• McKinsey & Company, “The state of AI: Global survey 2025,” McKinsey QuantumBlack, 2025.
• Deloitte AI Institute, “Now decides next: Generating a new future–The state of generative AI in the enterprise, quarter four report,” Deloitte, 2025.
• IBM Security, “Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025,” IBM Corporation, 2025.
• DAMA International, DAMA-DMBOK: Data Management Body of Knowledge, 2nd ed. Basking Ridge, NJ, USA: Technics Publications, 2017.
• S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Pearson, 2020.