Use case
Use case3 min readBy The Data Workers Team

Regulatory reporting data, run by agents

Filings are rebuilt each quarter from data that moved since the last one, with lineage assembled by hand. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Key takeaways

  • •The problem today. Filings are rebuilt each quarter from data that moved since the last one, with lineage assembled by hand.
  • •What changes. Agents keep reporting inputs reconciled daily and generate lineage evidence from the live graph.
  • •What stays with your people. Filed numbers: they carry personal accountability.
  • •The result. Quarter end is a review with evidence ready.

The problem today

Filings are rebuilt each quarter from data that moved since the last one, with lineage assembled by hand.

What changes with Data Workers

Agents keep reporting inputs reconciled daily and generate lineage evidence from the live graph.

The workflow: Quality Monitoring agent (run_quality_check) → Schema Evolution agent (detect_schema_change) → Data Context & Catalog agent (generate_documentation) → Autonomous Data-Conductor (request_governance_review).
Fig. 1:The workflow: Quality Monitoring agent (run_quality_check) → Schema Evolution agent (detect_schema_change) → Data Context & Catalog agent (generate_documentation) → Autonomous Data-Conductor (request_governance_review).

The workflow, step by step

  1. 1.The Quality Monitoring agent calls run_quality_check and reconciles to the ledger.
  2. 2.The Schema Evolution agent calls detect_schema_change and catches upstream changes.
  3. 3.The Data Context & Catalog agent calls generate_documentation and produces lineage evidence.
  4. 4.The Autonomous Data-Conductor calls request_governance_review and holds filing inputs.

The impact metrics we move

  • •Lineage evidence: from about 2 weeks to 4 h
  • •Ledger tie-out: from about a week to 8-15 min
  • •Upstream change explained: from about a week to under 1 h
Time to complete, current practice (black) vs. with Data Workers (green). Illustrative.
Fig. 2:Time to complete, current practice (black) vs. with Data Workers (green). Illustrative.

What goes on autopilot

  • •Inputs reconcile daily, so quarter end has no surprises.
  • •Lineage evidence is generated, so supervisor requests take hours.

Where your people stay in charge

Filed numbers always go to a named approver, because they carry personal accountability. Everything starts at L1, observing only, and autonomy rises only on evidence.

The pilot

  • •Scope. Daily tie-out on one filing.
  • •First week. Agents run at L1, observing only, and show the fixes they would have made, with receipts.
  • •By week two. The routine work above runs on its own; anything sensitive stays with a named approver.
  • •At day 30. We review the impact metrics against your baseline:
  • •Lineage evidence: from about 2 weeks to 4 h
  • •Ledger tie-out: from about a week to 8-15 min
  • •Upstream change explained: from about a week to under 1 h
  • •Cost. Start with a pilot ($7,500 one-time, credited in full against the first year). Scale is from $1,000 a month and Enterprise from $3,000 a month, billed annually, with unlimited seats, no usage meter and no markup on model spend. See pricing.

Related: The financial services hub · The full team playbook

Related Posts

Use case

Account intelligence data, run by agents

Account data is split across CRM, billing, product usage and enrichment vendors that identify accounts differently. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Use case

Accruals and prepaids data, run by agents

Accrual schedules live in spreadsheets, and missed or stale accruals surface in review. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Use case

Agent governance and audit, run by agents

AI agents act on data with no consistent approval, record or rollback. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Use case

Agentic controllership, run by agents

Controllers spend the month chasing reconciliations, approvals and evidence across ERP, billing and spreadsheets. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.