Trade Finance Document Workflows: Where Agents Replace Junior Bankers

Table of Contents

1. The Junior Banker Bottleneck in Trade Finance
2. Why Traditional Automation Fails Trade Finance
3. Agentic AI: The Architecture That Works
4. How Opus 4.7 Reads Trade Finance Documents
5. Building Your AU/APAC Trade Finance Agent
6. Real-World Implementation: From Pilot to Production
7. Compliance, Audit Trails, and SOC 2 Readiness
8. Measuring ROI: Time, Cost, and Risk Reduction
9. Getting Started: Your First 90 Days

---

The Junior Banker Bottleneck in Trade Finance

Trade finance is broken. Not fundamentally—the mechanics of letter of credit (LC), bill of lading (B/L), and inspection certificate workflows are sound. But the execution is trapped in 1995.

Every day across Australian and Asia-Pacific trade finance desks, junior bankers spend 4–6 hours manually checking documents. They cross-reference LC terms against B/L shipment details. They verify inspection certificate dates against payment milestones. They flag discrepancies in beneficiary names, quantities, and port codes. This work is mechanical, rule-based, and utterly repeatable—yet it remains almost entirely manual.

The cost is brutal. A mid-sized AU bank processing 200 trade finance transactions monthly burns 400–600 junior banker hours per month on document checking alone. At $60–80k annual salary, that’s $40–50k monthly in labour cost just to catch what should be caught by software. Worse, junior bankers miss things. Human error in trade finance document review runs 8–12% across the industry. A missed discrepancy can trigger payment delays, customer disputes, and regulatory flags.

The bottleneck cascades. Clients wait 3–5 days for document clearance instead of 4–8 hours. Desk managers spend time managing junior banker queues instead of relationship-building. Compliance teams audit slower because they’re reviewing manual work that should have been validated by software. And when deal velocity matters—particularly in APAC where competing banks move fast—slow document workflows cost you market share.

This is where agentic AI enters. Not as a nice-to-have, but as a necessity.

---

Why Traditional Automation Fails Trade Finance

Before we talk about what works, let’s be clear about what doesn’t.

Robotic process automation (RPA) was supposed to solve this. Vendors promised that rule-based bots could extract data from PDFs, compare fields, and flag exceptions. Some banks spent $500k–$1M on RPA platforms and got partial relief. But RPA hits a wall in trade finance because documents are messy.

Letters of credit are semi-structured. A bank’s LC template differs from another bank’s. Beneficiary names appear in different positions. Payment terms are embedded in prose, not in fixed fields. Bill of ladings from different carriers use different layouts. Inspection certificates come from dozens of inspection houses, each with their own format. RPA requires brittle, carrier-specific or bank-specific rules. When a new carrier or new LC template arrives, the bot fails and escalates back to a human.

Traditional document automation platforms fare better but still struggle. Tools designed for invoicing or contract processing work because those documents are relatively standardised. Trade finance documents are not. A platform that works for domestic invoicing breaks when it encounters a 20-year-old scanned B/L from a regional port or a handwritten inspection certificate amendment.

Rule-based systems are the worst fit. Trade finance is full of implicit context. A discrepancy in quantity might be acceptable if the LC allows partial shipments and the inspection certificate confirms the actual goods. A late shipment might be acceptable if the LC permits it and the bank has approved an amendment. A minor spelling variation in the beneficiary name might be acceptable under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) rules. Rigid rules miss these nuances.

What’s needed is something smarter: a system that can read documents like a senior banker reads them—contextually, with judgment, and with the ability to reason about trade finance rules.

That’s where agentic AI comes in. Unlike RPA or rule-based systems, agentic AI can handle unstructured, semi-structured, and messy documents. It can reason about trade finance logic. It can flag exceptions that matter and ignore exceptions that don’t. And it can do it at scale, without brittle rules per document type.

---

Agentic AI: The Architecture That Works

Agentic AI is fundamentally different from traditional automation. Instead of following pre-written rules or RPA scripts, agentic AI uses a large language model (LLM) as a reasoning engine. The agent reads a document, understands its content, reasons about what it means, and makes decisions based on that understanding.

For trade finance, this means:

Document Understanding Without Brittle Rules. An agent can read an LC in any format, extract key terms (amount, beneficiary, expiry, conditions), and understand what they mean. It doesn’t need a rule per bank or per template. It learns from examples and generalises.

Contextual Reasoning. The agent can cross-reference LC terms against B/L details against inspection certificate dates. It understands that a 5-day late shipment might be acceptable under UCP 600 if the LC permits it. It knows that a partial shipment is only acceptable if the LC allows it. This is judgment, not rule-matching.

Handling Messy Documents. The agent works with scanned PDFs, handwritten amendments, poor OCR, and unusual layouts. It doesn’t break when it encounters a document it hasn’t seen before.

Audit Trail and Explainability. Every decision is logged. The agent explains why it flagged a discrepancy or why it cleared a document. This is critical for compliance and for human review.

The architecture typically looks like this:

1. Document Ingestion. PDFs (LC, B/L, inspection certificates) arrive via email, API, or upload portal.
2. OCR and Extraction. Documents are converted to text. For scanned PDFs, optical character recognition (OCR) is applied.
3. Agent Processing. An LLM-powered agent reads the documents and performs the checking task. This is where the intelligence lives.
4. Validation and Escalation. The agent flags discrepancies and exceptions. High-confidence clears are marked automatically. Lower-confidence or complex cases are escalated to a human banker for review.
5. Logging and Compliance. Every decision, every reasoning step, every escalation is logged for audit and compliance.

This architecture is fundamentally different from RPA because it’s not following pre-written scripts. It’s reasoning. And that reasoning capability is what makes it work for messy, complex documents like those in trade finance.

---

How Opus 4.7 Reads Trade Finance Documents

Our reference architecture for AU and APAC trade finance teams uses Claude Opus 4.7 as the reasoning engine. Opus is a strong choice for this work because it’s multimodal (reads both text and images), has a 200k token context window (enough to read multiple documents in one go), and reasons reliably about complex, domain-specific logic.

Here’s how it works in practice:

Input: Three Documents

The agent receives:

• A letter of credit (LC) PDF: 3–5 pages, contains terms, conditions, beneficiary details, amount, expiry, required documents
• A bill of lading (B/L) PDF: 1–2 pages, contains shipper, consignee, goods description, quantity, ports, dates
• An inspection certificate PDF: 1–2 pages, contains inspection date, goods inspected, quantity confirmed, any notes or deviations

Processing Step 1: Document Understanding

Opus reads all three documents and extracts key fields:

From the LC:

• Beneficiary name and address
• Applicant (buyer) name
• Amount (in currency)
• Latest shipping date
• Port of loading and discharge
• Required documents (LC, B/L, inspection certificate, commercial invoice, packing list, etc.)
• Special conditions (e.g., “Inspection certificate required”, “Partial shipments not allowed”, “Transshipment not allowed”)
• Payment terms (at sight, 30 days, etc.)

From the B/L:

• Shipper name and address
• Consignee name and address
• Goods description and quantity
• Port of loading and port of discharge
• Shipping date
• Carrier and vessel name

From the Inspection Certificate:

• Inspection date
• Goods inspected and quantity confirmed
• Inspection company name
• Any deviations or notes

Processing Step 2: Discrepancy Detection

Opus compares these fields against the LC terms:

• Does the B/L shipper match the LC beneficiary? (Minor spelling variations are acceptable under UCP 600.)
• Does the B/L quantity match the LC amount (in terms of goods, not currency)?
• Is the shipment date within the LC latest shipping date?
• Is the port of loading and discharge correct?
• Is the inspection certificate date before the shipment date? (It should be.)
• Are all required documents present and valid?
• Do special conditions in the LC match the actual shipment? (E.g., if the LC says “no transshipment”, is there evidence of transshipment in the B/L?)

Processing Step 3: Reasoning About Exceptions

This is where Opus adds value. It doesn’t just flag differences; it reasons about whether they matter.

Example 1: The B/L shows a shipment date 4 days after the LC latest shipping date.

Opus checks: Does the LC allow for amendments? Has the bank issued an amendment extending the date? If yes, the discrepancy is resolved. If no, it’s a real exception that needs escalation.

Example 2: The beneficiary name on the B/L is “PT Maju Jaya Indonesia” but the LC says “PT Maju Jaya Ind.” (abbreviated).

Opus reasons: Under UCP 600, minor spelling variations and abbreviations are acceptable if the intent is clear. This is not a discrepancy that would cause the LC to be rejected. It’s a note for the file, but not an exception.

Example 3: The inspection certificate shows 95 units inspected, but the LC calls for 100 units.

Opus checks: Does the LC allow partial shipments? If yes, this is acceptable (though it might trigger a partial payment). If no, this is a discrepancy that must be resolved before payment.

Processing Step 4: Decision and Output

Opus generates a structured output:

Status: CLEARED / EXCEPTIONS FLAGGED / ESCALATE FOR REVIEW
Confidence: 95% / 80% / 60%

Discrepancies Found:
1. Shipment date 4 days late vs. LC requirement. LC amendment dated [date] extends deadline. RESOLVED.
2. Inspection certificate shows 95 units vs. LC requirement of 100. LC allows partial shipments. ACCEPTABLE.

Required Actions:
- Confirm amendment on file
- Process partial payment for 95 units
- Notify applicant of shortfall

Audit Trail:
- Document received: [timestamp]
- Processing time: 2 minutes
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7
- Reasoning: [full explanation]

This output goes to the banker. If confidence is high and no exceptions exist, the document is auto-cleared. If exceptions exist but are resolvable, the banker reviews and approves the action (usually within 15 minutes). If the case is complex or confidence is low, it’s escalated to a senior banker.

Why Opus 4.7 Works for Trade Finance

Opus is strong for this task because:

1. Multimodal Input. It reads both text and images, so it works with scanned PDFs, handwritten amendments, and poor OCR.
2. Large Context Window. The 200k token context means it can read all three documents plus LC templates, UCP 600 rules, and bank-specific policies in a single request. No need to break the problem into smaller chunks.
3. Reasoning Capability. Opus excels at logical reasoning, which is critical for trade finance. It understands conditional logic (“if partial shipments are allowed, then…”) and can apply domain-specific rules.
4. Low Hallucination Rate. For a task like this, accuracy matters. Opus has a low hallucination rate compared to smaller models, which means fewer false positives or false negatives.
5. Cost-Effective at Scale. Opus’s pricing is reasonable for high-volume processing. Processing 200 documents per month costs roughly $200–400 in API fees, compared to $40–50k in junior banker labour.

---

Building Your AU/APAC Trade Finance Agent

If you’re a bank, fintech, or trade finance platform in Australia or APAC, here’s how to build this.

Step 1: Define Your Scope

Start narrow. Pick one document type and one workflow. For example:

• Process letters of credit and bills of lading only (not inspection certificates yet)
• Handle only sight LCs (not usance or deferred payment)
• Focus on a single currency (AUD or USD)
• Limit to a specific set of carriers or inspection companies

This gives you a manageable pilot with clear success metrics.

Step 2: Gather Training Data

Collect 50–100 historical trade finance transactions. For each, gather:

• The LC PDF
• The B/L PDF
• The inspection certificate PDF (if applicable)
• The manual review notes from the banker who checked them
• The final decision (cleared, exceptions flagged, escalated)

This data is your ground truth. It’s how you’ll evaluate the agent’s accuracy.

Step 3: Design the Agent Prompt

Write a detailed system prompt that tells Opus what to do. Include:

• The task: “You are a trade finance document checker. Your job is to read a letter of credit, bill of lading, and inspection certificate, and identify any discrepancies that would prevent payment.”
• The rules: Include relevant UCP 600 rules, your bank’s specific policies, and any APAC-specific requirements.
• The output format: Specify exactly how the agent should structure its response (JSON, markdown, etc.).
• Examples: Include 3–5 examples of documents with discrepancies and the expected output.

A good prompt is 2–5 pages long. It’s specific, not vague. It includes examples. It’s testable.

Step 4: Test Against Historical Data

Run the agent against your 50–100 historical transactions. For each, compare the agent’s decision against the banker’s decision. Calculate:

• Accuracy: % of transactions where the agent’s decision matched the banker’s
• False Positives: % of transactions the agent flagged as exceptions but the banker cleared
• False Negatives: % of transactions the agent cleared but the banker flagged
• Processing Time: How long does the agent take per document?

Your target should be 95%+ accuracy and <5 minutes per transaction. If you’re not there, iterate on the prompt.

Step 5: Integrate with Your Systems

Build an API layer that:

1. Receives documents (via email, API, or upload portal)
2. Converts PDFs to text/images
3. Calls the Claude API with the agent prompt and documents
4. Logs the response and reasoning
5. Routes the result: auto-clear to the payment system, flag to a banker’s queue, or escalate to a senior banker

This integration is straightforward. Claude’s API is well-documented. Most banks can build this in 4–6 weeks with a small team (1 engineer, 1 product manager, 1 trade finance subject matter expert).

Step 6: Implement Human-in-the-Loop Review

Don’t auto-clear everything. Implement tiers:

• Tier 1 (Auto-Clear): High confidence (95%+), no exceptions, standard document types. These go straight to payment.
• Tier 2 (Banker Review): Medium confidence (80–95%), minor exceptions, or non-standard documents. A banker reviews within 15 minutes and approves or escalates.
• Tier 3 (Senior Banker Review): Low confidence (<80%), complex exceptions, or cases that require judgment. A senior banker reviews and decides.

This keeps humans in the loop where it matters and removes them from the routine work.

---

Real-World Implementation: From Pilot to Production

Here’s how a typical AU bank might roll this out over 6 months.

Month 1–2: Pilot

Pick one trade finance desk (e.g., the Melbourne office). Process 20–30 transactions per week through the agent. A banker reviews every output and provides feedback. The goal is to validate the agent’s accuracy and identify edge cases.

During this phase, expect:

• Agent accuracy to improve from 85% to 92% as you refine the prompt
• 2–3 edge cases to emerge (e.g., handwritten amendments, unusual port codes, non-standard LC templates)
• Buy-in from the pilot desk as they see time savings

Month 3: Refinement

Based on pilot feedback, refine the agent:

• Improve the prompt to handle edge cases
• Add new document types (e.g., commercial invoices, packing lists)
• Expand the scope (e.g., usance LCs, multiple currencies)
• Improve the UI/UX for banker review

Run the agent against the full historical dataset again. Target 95%+ accuracy.

Month 4: Rollout to One Region

Expand to a full region (e.g., all AU desks). Process 100–150 transactions per week. Bankers review Tier 2 cases; senior bankers handle Tier 3. Monitor:

• Agent accuracy
• Banker feedback and escalation rates
• Processing time (target: <4 hours from document receipt to clearance)
• Cost savings (track labour hours saved)

Month 5–6: Rollout to APAC

Expand to Singapore, Hong Kong, and other APAC offices. Handle regional variations:

• Different LC templates per region
• Regional-specific carriers and inspection companies
• Local currency and payment practices
• Local compliance requirements

Target: Process 500+ transactions per month across APAC with 95%+ accuracy and <2 hours average processing time.

Expected Outcomes After 6 Months

• Labour Savings: Reduce junior banker FTE by 40–60%. A team of 5 junior bankers becomes 2–3.
• Speed: Reduce document clearance time from 3–5 days to 4–8 hours.
• Accuracy: Increase from 88–92% (human) to 95%+ (agent + human review).
• Cost: Save $200–300k annually in labour. Invest $50–100k in agent development and infrastructure. Net savings: $100–250k year 1.
• Customer Impact: Faster settlement, fewer disputes, better SLAs.

These numbers are realistic for a mid-sized AU/APAC bank processing 2,000+ trade finance transactions annually.

---

Compliance, Audit Trails, and SOC 2 Readiness

Trade finance is regulated. You can’t just deploy an agent and hope. You need audit trails, explainability, and compliance.

Audit Trails

Every decision must be logged:

• When the document was received
• Which model processed it (Claude Opus 4.7)
• What the model saw (the documents, the prompt, any additional context)
• What the model decided (cleared, exceptions, escalate)
• The reasoning (the model’s explanation of its decision)
• Who reviewed it (if a human was involved)
• The final decision and when it was made
• Any amendments or corrections

This log is immutable and timestamped. It’s your evidence that the process was followed correctly.

Explainability

When the agent flags a discrepancy, it must explain why. Not “Exception found” but “The shipment date (15 Jan) is 4 days after the LC latest shipping date (11 Jan). The LC does not allow amendments. This is a material discrepancy that requires resolution before payment.”

This explanation is critical for two reasons:

1. It helps the banker understand and review the decision quickly.
2. It’s your evidence in a dispute. If a customer challenges the bank’s decision, you can show the reasoning.

SOC 2 Compliance

If you’re processing trade finance documents, you’re likely working toward SOC 2 Type II certification (or ISO 27001 for some regions). The agent must fit into your SOC 2 framework:

• Access Control: Only authorised bankers can review and approve agent decisions. Log all access.
• Data Security: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest. API calls to Claude use TLS. No documents are stored longer than necessary.
• Change Management: Any changes to the agent prompt or logic are documented, tested, and approved before deployment.
• Incident Response: If the agent makes a material error (e.g., clears a document with a critical discrepancy), you have a process to identify it, correct it, and prevent recurrence.
• Monitoring and Alerting: You monitor agent accuracy in real-time. If accuracy drops below 90%, you alert the team and investigate.

Building for SOC 2 compliance doesn’t require a separate system. It requires discipline: document everything, test everything, log everything, and review regularly. This is standard practice for financial services, and agentic AI fits into it naturally.

For more on compliance frameworks and audit readiness, consider reviewing how to approach SOC 2 compliance via Vanta or working with a partner who understands both AI and financial services compliance.

---

Measuring ROI: Time, Cost, and Risk Reduction

ROI isn’t just about labour savings. It’s about time, cost, and risk.

Time Savings

Before: A junior banker spends 4 hours per day on document checking. With 20 working days per month, that’s 80 hours per month per banker. A team of 5 bankers = 400 hours per month.

After: The agent processes documents in 2–5 minutes per transaction. Bankers review Tier 2 cases (10–15 minutes per case) and escalate Tier 3 cases (30 minutes per case). For 200 transactions per month:

• Tier 1 (auto-clear, 60%): 120 transactions × 3 minutes = 360 minutes = 6 hours
• Tier 2 (review, 30%): 60 transactions × 15 minutes = 900 minutes = 15 hours
• Tier 3 (escalate, 10%): 20 transactions × 30 minutes = 600 minutes = 10 hours
• Total: 31 hours per month vs. 400 hours before

Time saved: 369 hours per month = 92% reduction.

Cost Savings

Junior banker salary: $70k per year = $5,833 per month = $27.27 per hour.

369 hours × $27.27 = $10,066 per month = $120,792 per year.

For a team of 5 bankers, you can reduce headcount by 2–3 FTE and redeploy them to higher-value work (relationship-building, complex cases, new products).

Cost of the agent:

• Development: $50–100k (one-time)
• Infrastructure and hosting: $5–10k per year
• Claude API calls: $200–400 per month at scale (200 transactions/month)

Net savings: $100–200k per year after year 1.

Risk Reduction

Human error in trade finance document review is 8–12%. An agent with 95%+ accuracy reduces this. Over 2,000 transactions per year:

Before: 160–240 errors per year (8–12% of 2,000) After: 100 errors per year (5% of 2,000, accounting for human review errors)

Reduction: 60–140 errors per year.

Each error can cost $5–50k in dispute resolution, regulatory fines, or customer churn. Conservative estimate: $10k per error.

Risk reduction value: $600–1.4M per year.

Customer Impact

Faster document clearance means faster payment. Instead of 3–5 days, customers get paid in 4–8 hours. For trade finance customers, this is huge. It improves cash flow, reduces working capital needs, and increases loyalty.

This translates to:

• Higher customer retention
• Ability to charge premium pricing for faster settlement
• Competitive advantage vs. slower banks
• New customer acquisition (“We settle in 8 hours, not 5 days”)

ROI is measurable. The agent pays for itself in 2–4 months through labour savings alone. Add risk reduction and customer impact, and the case is compelling.

---

Getting Started: Your First 90 Days

If you’re convinced and ready to move, here’s your 90-day roadmap.

Week 1–2: Scope and Team

• Define your pilot scope: Which document types? Which workflows? Which region?
• Assemble your team: 1 engineer, 1 product manager, 1 trade finance SME, 1 banker for feedback
• Gather historical data: Collect 50–100 past transactions with manual review notes
• Set success metrics: Accuracy, processing time, cost savings

Week 3–4: Agent Development

• Write the system prompt based on UCP 600 rules and your bank’s policies
• Set up the Claude API integration
• Test the agent against historical data
• Iterate on the prompt until you hit 90%+ accuracy

Week 5–6: Pilot Setup

• Build the UI/UX for banker review (web portal or email-based interface)
• Set up logging and audit trails
• Train the pilot desk on how to use the system
• Start processing live transactions (20–30 per week)

Week 7–8: Pilot Feedback

• Collect feedback from bankers
• Identify edge cases and refine the prompt
• Measure accuracy, processing time, and labour savings
• Get buy-in from the pilot desk

Week 9–10: Refinement

• Improve the agent based on feedback
• Add new document types or expand scope
• Improve the UI/UX based on banker feedback
• Re-test against historical data

Week 11–12: Rollout Plan

• Plan rollout to full region
• Set up infrastructure for higher volume
• Train additional bankers
• Prepare communication for customers

Week 13+: Rollout

• Launch to full region
• Monitor accuracy, processing time, cost savings
• Iterate based on real-world feedback
• Plan expansion to other regions

Key Decisions to Make Now

1. Build vs. Buy: Build your own agent (4–6 weeks, $50–100k) or license a platform? Most banks should build because the logic is specific to their processes. Platforms are slower and more expensive.

2. Scope: Start narrow (one document type, one region) or broad (all documents, all regions)? Start narrow. You’ll learn faster and reduce risk.

3. Human Review: How much human review is acceptable? Most banks should aim for 30–40% human review in year 1 (Tier 2 and Tier 3 cases). This keeps humans in the loop and maintains control.

4. Vendor vs. In-House: Build the agent with your own team or hire a partner? If you have engineering capacity, build in-house. If not, hire a partner. Either way, you own the code and the data.

5. Compliance: Start with SOC 2 readiness from day 1. It’s not an afterthought. Log everything, document everything, test everything.

Who Should Lead This

This is a technology and operations project. It needs:

• Executive Sponsor: A C-suite or senior manager who can remove blockers and allocate budget
• Product Manager: Someone who understands trade finance and can define requirements
• Engineer: Someone who can build the integration and manage the Claude API
• Trade Finance SME: Someone who knows the rules (UCP 600, local regulations) and can validate the agent
• Compliance/Risk: Someone who can ensure SOC 2 readiness and audit trails

This is a 3–6 month project with a small team (3–5 people). It’s not a massive undertaking, but it requires focus and discipline.

---

Conclusion: The Future of Trade Finance is Agentic

Trade finance is ripe for disruption. The junior banker bottleneck is real, the documents are messy, and the rules are complex. Traditional automation (RPA, rule-based systems) has failed because it can’t handle the messiness and complexity.

Agentic AI changes this. By using a large language model as a reasoning engine, you can automate the core task—document checking—while keeping humans in the loop for judgment calls. You get 95%+ accuracy, 4–8 hour processing times, and 40–60% labour savings.

The architecture is proven. Claude Opus 4.7 can read LCs, B/Ls, and inspection certificates. It understands UCP 600 rules. It reasons about exceptions. It explains its decisions. It scales to hundreds of transactions per month.

The business case is clear. A mid-sized AU bank can save $100–200k per year while improving customer service and reducing risk. A larger bank can save $500k–$2M per year.

The implementation is straightforward. 90 days from concept to pilot. 6 months from pilot to full rollout.

If you’re a bank, fintech, or trade finance platform in Australia or APAC, this is not a “nice to have.” It’s a competitive necessity. Your competitors are building this. Your customers expect faster settlement. Your regulators expect better controls.

Start now. Pick your scope. Assemble your team. Build the agent. Measure the results.

The future of trade finance is agentic. The question is whether you’ll lead it or follow it.

---

Next Steps

1. Validate the Business Case: Calculate your current labour costs and processing times. Compare to the savings outlined here.

2. Gather Historical Data: Collect 50–100 past transactions with manual review notes. This is your baseline for testing.

3. Assemble Your Team: Find an engineer, a product manager, and a trade finance SME. Allocate 3–6 months.

4. Explore Your Options: Build in-house or hire a partner? PADISO works with AU and APAC banks on agentic AI and AI automation projects. We’ve built similar agents for other industries and can guide you through the process.

5. Start the Pilot: Pick one desk, one workflow, one region. Process 20–30 transactions per week. Measure accuracy and time. Iterate.

Trade finance document workflows are where agents replace junior bankers. The technology is ready. The business case is clear. The only question is: when will you start?