Customer files, agreements and circulars across every branch, searchable in Nepali and English, with a trail on every one.
The record almost always exists. What is missing is proof of who did what to it.
Branch and head office hold overlapping copies, the authoritative one is whichever the person asking happens to open, and reconstructing an approval means telephoning people who may have left. Every document goes through the same five stages instead.
Scanned and photographed pages are read on arrival in Nepali and English, so a counter-signed form becomes searchable text rather than an image nobody can find again. Handwriting is not supported, so hand-filled fields still need a person to key them.
Dates, reference numbers and parties are extracted from each document as it arrives, alongside its category, document type, owner and branch. Those are the fields anyone actually searches on, and capturing them at intake is what stops the file becoming unreachable a year later.
A document stays private to whoever added it until it is deliberately shared, and viewing, editing and approving are separate rights rather than one blanket permission. Search respects those rights, so a restricted customer file never surfaces for someone without access — not even as a title.
Approvals move through defined stages with named owners and deadlines, and reminders go out automatically when a stage runs late. Where one signature is not enough, a stage can require several named people before the case moves on.
Every action lands in a tamper-evident history, so an approval can be reconstructed from the record instead of from someone’s memory. Closed or rejected cases can be reopened when a question comes back months later.
In every one of these the document exists and someone can open it. What is missing is not storage — it is knowing which copy governs, who was allowed to touch it, and what happened to it after that.
The same customer agreement sits in a branch folder and a head-office folder, and which one is authoritative depends on who you ask. One record with an explicit status and a named branch removes the argument before it starts.
A circular is superseded, the replacement is filed somewhere else, and staff keep working from whichever copy they happen to have. Draft, active and superseded are explicit statuses, so the current one is identifiable and the old one stays as the record of what applied at the time.
The approval happened, the invoice exists and the correspondence is in somebody’s mailbox, but assembling all three takes a week of asking around. Documents, email and the approval history sit together, so the supporting material is retrieved rather than reconstructed.
An agreement is scanned at the branch, emailed to head office, downloaded by two people and saved again under four different names. Repeat copies are detected as they arrive, and nothing is removed automatically, so the executed original is never swept up with the clutter.
Different desks, different jobs — from the branch counter to whoever answers when an inspection lands.
Branch operations
Find the circular that governs a request, and see that it is the one currently in force, without telephoning head office.
Credit
Pull the application, the identity documents and the supporting proofs into one record before it reaches whoever approves it.
Compliance
Produce the documents behind a figure together with the correspondence they arrived on, as one set.
Head office
Mark the replaced version superseded so branches stop working from it, without losing the record of what applied before.
Operations
Grant view, edit and approve rights per document class, rather than handing over a folder and hoping.
Finance
See which stage a payment is sitting at and who is holding it, instead of asking around the building.
Only if they have been given access. A document stays private to whoever added it until it is deliberately shared, and viewing, editing and approving are separate rights. Search respects those rights, so a customer file from another branch does not appear in results for someone without access — not even as a title they could infer something from.
Yes. Nepali and English are supported throughout, and the interface follows the reader’s language. Scanned and photographed pages are read in both, so a Nepali form that arrived as a scan is searchable on its contents rather than only on whatever the file was named.
From the case itself. Every action sits in a tamper-evident history showing the stages, the named owners, what each of them did and when. The supporting documents and the correspondence are indexed alongside it, so the answer comes out of the record rather than out of telephoning people who may have left.
No. New material can start flowing through the same intake, extraction and approval path from day one while the archive comes across afterwards. Bulk import is driven from a spreadsheet with progress shown, and repeat copies are detected as they arrive, so a backlog brought in later does not carry the old folder structure’s duplication into the new repository.
Yes. A stage can require several named approvers, and the case does not move on until each of them has acted. Stages carry deadlines with automatic reminders when they run late, and a closed or rejected case can be reopened if the matter comes back.
Not yet. Retention rules by document type are being built and are not available today, so we would rather you plan around that than discover it after signing. What does exist now is the part retention depends on: every document carries a category, document type and status, and every action on it is in a tamper-evident history.