Finance is using AI. Are your controls keeping up? 🤖

In Partnership with

Taking months to implement FP&A tools should be illegal…

There is a new rising star that is setting the bar for what “time-to-value” should be for FP&A  software. Hint, it’s measured in hours, not months.

Aleph is an AI-native FP&A platform that seamlessly connects your cross-system data, spreadsheets, and strategy at the speed of startups with the power to support enterprises.

You can try out Aleph right now (with your own data) for free. Zero risk with endless upside.

Book a demo.

Two finance conversations this week highlighted the same shift: the AI discussion within the CFO role is shifting from curiosity to practical application. The question is no longer if the tools are valuable. It's whether finance leaders can distinguish real benefits from noisy experimentation before they commit to spending, workflows, and expectations they can't fully control.

This issue discusses the confidence gap still impacting AI adoption in finance, a straightforward operating discipline for assessing emerging tools before they spread throughout the organization, and three articles worth your time.

That number matters because it shows adoption is outpacing operating confidence. Most teams are no longer debating whether AI belongs in finance, but many still lack a stable framework for when to trust it, where to contain it, and how to measure whether it is creating value instead of adding noise. The practical step now is to categorize AI use cases into three groups: low-risk productivity support, decision support, and financially sensitive workflow execution.

If your team applies the same governance standard to all three, you don't have an AI strategy yet. You only have a usage pattern.

At one company, the issue wasn't that teams were moving recklessly. It was that each function tested something different, each tool promising something on its own, and there was no shared standard for what counted as a real success. The demos looked impressive. The business case was weak. By quarter-end, finance was dealing with overlapping contracts, inconsistent usage, and no clear answer to a simple question: which of these tools is truly changing how work gets done?

When the CFO asks which AI initiatives should receive more investment and which should be cut, you respond with an operational filter instead of a collection of enthusiastic anecdotes.

AI becomes valuable in finance when it transitions from novelty to structured support for analysis, variance review, and other time-consuming tasks, while humans maintain judgment and accountability.

My take: The real lesson is not that finance should adopt more AI, but that it should deploy AI with clearer intent and stricter boundaries. Once a tool begins to shape analysis quickly, the CFO’s role is to determine where judgment remains human and where efficiency improvements justify the added governance.

Scott Showalter highlights the importance of alternative CPA pathways as states reconsider the traditional 150-hour route. The broader conversation centers on increasing access to the profession while upholding standards.

My take: CFOs should view this as a future capacity challenge, not just a licensing matter. If the talent pipeline into accounting remains too limited, finance leaders will have less ability to handle regulatory complexity, modernize their teams, and oversee AI responsibly simultaneously.

The healthcare finance discussion highlights a familiar tension: CFOs are still being pressured to invest in AI and operational technology even as health systems face workforce strain, reimbursement pressures, and the need to demonstrate that new tools will scale responsibly.

My take: This is where AI finance gets real, because capital discipline matters more in sectors that cannot afford experimental waste. When margins are tight, the CFO is not buying innovation in the abstract. They are buying a theory of operational improvement that has to survive contact with staffing shortages, workflow friction, and measurable ROI.

The break typically occurs after a pilot begins to show potential. A team produces a useful result, confidence increases, and suddenly the tool starts making decisions it was never officially approved to influence. That's how experimentation turns into reliance before management decides if the system deserves trust or should be scaled.

Can you produce right now a list of every AI pilot in finance, who owns each one, what workflow it touches, and what metric determines success? If not, that is the operating inventory to build before the next budget review.

The finance function is entering a more challenging phase of the AI cycle. The initial curiosity period is coming to an end. What comes next is more difficult and more vital: disciplined evaluation, clearer ownership, and a better understanding of which capabilities truly belong in core finance workflows.

That is why this week’s pattern is important. One article shows how a CFO moved from light experimentation to more structured use of AI. One point highlights the profession’s pipeline challenge at the exact moment finance needs a deeper bench. Another reflects the capital pressure facing CFOs, who are being asked to fund technology in environments where every operating dollar matters.

The main point is clear. AI strategy isn't just about having tools; it's about whether finance leadership can develop the talent, judgment, and operational discipline to use those tools without creating new vulnerabilities. Teams that succeed won't necessarily be the ones with the most AI, but those that understand exactly where AI fits.

Until next edition. — Marcus Reid, CPA.

P.S. If your team has found an effective way to evaluate AI pilots before they spread across different functions, reply directly. I am gathering examples of review questions and kill criteria that genuinely help CFOs distinguish signal from noise.