Empromptu LogoEmpromptu

Start with one carrier or lane. Parse every line, flag overcharges against contract; prove recovery before going broad.
We're paying carrier invoices we never verify - and we have

You can audit one carrier's invoices automatically without changing your TMS.

What changes when AI orchestration runs the loop

Not 'another audit integration' -> 'capture the accessorial and duplicate errors your current audit leaves on the table

You've automated standard checks; the messy, document-heavy errors still leak. A model that reads every invoice format and learns your carriers' patterns catches what manual review misses.

Not 'more visibility' -> 'clear the tenders and exceptions your reps handle by hand.'

You've got a TMS and tracking; tendering and exceptions stay manual. A model trained on your carrier/lane outcomes auto-tenders and routes exceptions by type.

Not 'more vetting' -> 'prove continuous carrier diligence, not just an onboarding check.'

You vet at onboarding; continuous re-checking and defensible proof stay manual. We evidence carrier diligence continuously - though freight's bigger Empromptu wins are tender/exception throughput and invoice-audit recovery.

Not 'more tracking' -> 'connect the network your visibility tool can't, upstream and across modes.'

You've got visibility; root-cause and upstream exposure stay manual across differently-formatted sources. A model trained on your network connects it and traces the cause.

Not 'more outreach' -> 'capture the shipper accounts your generic prospecting misses.'

You've automated outreach; it's generic. A model trained on your won accounts targets the shippers and lanes you convert.

Where the work changes

Five frames in this vertical's language — leak, operational, governance, analysis, growth.

Leak / value-capture: Not 'another audit integration' -> 'capture the accessorial and duplicate errors

We're paying carrier invoices we never verify - and we have no line-item visibility into the spend.

  • Carrier invoices wrong a meaningful share of the time; accessorials (detention, liftgate, fuel) highest-error category.
  • Duplicate billings slip through high-volume manual review.
  • Non-standardized invoice formats across carriers/modes defeat manual checks.
  • Most companies lack line-item spend visibility.

Operational throughput: Not 'more visibility' -> 'clear the tenders and exceptions your reps handle by h

Our tender and exception handling is phone-and-email - it caps how many loads each rep can move a day.

  • Load-tender cycle (tender -> accept -> dispatch -> BOL) done by phone/email/manual entry caps shipments per rep per day.
  • Exception handling (late pickup, detention, doc errors) is reactive and manually routed.
  • Status milestones tracked by hand; exceptions found after the window is blown.
  • Throughput per head is the constraint as volume scales.

Governance & audit: Not 'more vetting' -> 'prove continuous carrier diligence, not just an onboardin

We do real compliance - verifying carrier authority, insurance, safety ratings, hazmat - but it's fragmented vetting, not an existential-audit regime.

  • Real compliance: FMCSA carrier authority/insurance verification, safety ratings, broker bonds, hours-of-service, FSMA for reefer, hazmat.
  • Carrier-vetting and continuous re-verification is a genuine process, but the penalty regime is lighter than NERC/BSA.
  • Negligent-selection liability for brokers is the sharpest governance exposure.
  • Documentation/proof of vetting is real but secondary to moving freight.

Analysis / diagnosis: Not 'more tracking' -> 'connect the network your visibility tool can't, upstream

Diagnosing why a shipment or network failed - and what's exposed upstream - means connecting fragmented data across carriers, modes, and tiers that format everything differently.

  • Carriers/internal systems/POs/GLs all format and classify data differently - teams sit between systems rekeying and reconciling.
  • Disconnected systems create lag between what happens and what teams see.
  • Tier-1-only visibility leaves upstream network exposure invisible.
  • Teams spend more time correcting records than analyzing them.

Growth / outcome: Not 'more outreach' -> 'capture the shipper accounts your generic prospecting mi

Our growth is winning shippers and expanding lanes - it's relationship and responsiveness, but we don't run it as a system.

  • For 3PLs/brokers (not shippers), growth = winning shipper accounts and expanding lanes/modes.
  • Quote responsiveness and follow-up drive win rate; speed-to-lead dynamics apply.
  • Carrier-relationship development is informal.
  • Note: for shippers themselves, the freight story is the leak engine (audit recovery), not Growth.

Where current tooling falls short

Category limitation: traditional freight-audit-and-pay catches structured/standard errors but struggles with the varied, document-heavy long tail (scanned PDFs, accessorial nuance, contract-specific terms); only a minority of shippers have true line-item visibility.

TMS platforms (e.g logo
MercuryGate logo
Oracle OTM) logo
freight-audit-and-pay providers (Cass logo
nVision logo
A3) logo
newer AI-native players (Overcharge.ai) logo

What's leaking and what it costs

[SCENARIO-LABEL] ['5%-15% of carrier invoices contain billing errors; ~3%-8% of total freight spend typically recoverable (multiple sources, 2025-2026).', '~22% of freight invoices need manual correction at ~$53.50 each (IOFM, 2025).', 'Worked example: $10M freight spend, 3% reco
[SCENARIO-LABEL] ['Automated tender flow lets the same team move 5-10x the volume with the same headcount (Warp 2026).', 'Score-based tendering pilot cut cycle time 40% and improved on-time 87% -> 92% (gettransport 2025); automated exception workflows cut handling time up to 50%
[SCENARIO-LABEL] ["No strong freight-specific governance penalty benchmark surfaced; treat penalty/enablement claims as scenario-labeled (didn't ground hard citations as for the regulated verticals).", 'Broker negligent-selection liability and FMCSA authority/insurance verificati
[SCENARIO-LABEL] ['Carriers submit invoices in dozens of formats; internal systems classify differently; teams manually rekey and reconcile across sources (Trax 2026).', 'IMF estimates technological fragmentation alone could cost ~5% of GDP for many countries (NetSuite 2025); con
[SCENARIO-LABEL] ['Speed-to-lead/quote-responsiveness dynamics apply (see B2B SaaS anchors) but no freight-specific Growth benchmark located - scenario-labeled.', 'Provider-level growth (3PL/broker) is the credible Growth angle; shipper-level fit is the leak engine.']

Frequently asked

Still have questions?

Book a 25-min call

We do real compliance - verifying carrier authority, insurance, safety ratings, hazmat - but it's fragmented vetting, not an existential-audit regime. Not 'more vetting' -> 'prove continuous carrier diligence, not just an onboarding check.'

Walk the numbers together