Free 2-minute implementation evidence demo.

Answer eight implementation questions and see every item mapped as Covered, Needs evidence, or Unresolved / needs remediation. No percentage score, no certification claim and no sales form between you and the result.

About 2 minutes

Eight implementation checks. No setup flow.

No email. No account. No upload.

Answers remain in browser session state.

See the handoff

Inspect downloadable synthetic evidence before buying.

Already have a rejected invoice?

Paste the exact PA / EN 16931 error into the free French rejection decoder. It classifies likely XML/XSD, BR-/BT-, VAT/total, identity and PDF/A-3 failure families locally in the browser.

Diagnose rejection

France timeline — keep reception and issuance separate

1 September 2026: all businesses must be able to receive electronic invoices; large companies and ETIs also begin the issuance obligation.

1 September 2027: PME, TPE and micro-enterprises begin the issuance obligation. This demo does not determine which legal timetable applies to your organisation.

French government reform guidance ↗DGFiP external specifications ↗

How to read the result

Covered — you said the implementation control exists.

Needs evidence — you are not yet sure the control is proven.

Unresolved / needs remediation — you said the control is not yet in place.

This is an implementation conversation aid, not legal advice, a compliance assessment, PA acceptance or production-readiness certification.

Want to see the finished demo first?

Load a fictional mix of covered, uncertain and unresolved controls. It does not represent a real company.

A receiving Plateforme Agréée path has been selected for the entities in scope.

This demo does not decide which PA you should choose; it only asks whether the receiving path is known.

Every invoice-producing source system in the implementation scope has been inventoried.

Include ERP instances, billing systems and other systems that can emit B2B invoice data.

You can produce a representative structured invoice corpus from those source systems.

A hand-picked single invoice is weaker evidence than a representative cut of source-system behaviour.

The structured export / PA interface path has been tested with the formats and profiles you actually plan to use.

Do not infer readiness solely from a configuration screen or theoretical mapping.

Required source fields and master-data mappings have an identified owner and test path.

Recurring defects often originate upstream in source data or mapping rather than the final transport step.

Rejected or blocked invoices have a defined exception and remediation workflow.

Someone should know who investigates, who fixes the source and how the correction is verified.

Corrections are re-tested against the same issue set instead of replacing the original evidence.

Keeping the starting point immutable makes resolved, new and unchanged findings easier to distinguish.

A named cutover or hypercare owner will monitor the first production period and coordinate remediation.

This is an operational ownership question, not a legal or tax conclusion.

Complete the eight checks to reveal your evidence map.

0 of 8 answered. Nothing is uploaded, emailed or sent to a backend by this demo.

Want to inspect the deliverable first?

Open the synthetic evidence pack before you buy.

See the manifest, findings, coverage, mapping gaps, review state and source provenance using fictional data. The paid preflight applies the bounded workflow to a representative structured corpus after controlled intake.

Inspect sample evidence