Great work!

Editable-by-default beats a blind accept/reject toggle here — it keeps the correction cost at one field when OCR gets a formation date wrong, instead of forcing a full manual re-entry the moment trust breaks on a single value.

Confirmation flows for OCR-extracted data are so easy to get wrong, either too much friction re-verifying everything or too little and errors slip through. Did you test how far you could push toward minimal review before people stopped trusting the auto-fill entirely?

The editable-fields approach is smart, letting people verify OCR output instead of trusting it blindly probably saves you a ton of support tickets down the line.

clean design！

Looks good. I like the minimalist approach. Nice and clean.

This is great tho

Making AI output editable rather than just showing a result is such a smart trust-building move. Users feel in control instead of just hoping the system got it right.

The editable confirmation step does more than correct OCR errors. It creates an audit boundary between machine extraction and user intent. I’d surface confidence selectively by flagging uncertain fields instead of asking users to distrust every value equally. Strong product thinking.

Good work

Love this approach Making AI-generated data editable and transparent is such a smart UX decision. It reduces friction while still giving users full control. Really clean work!

The UX tension you've solved here is the right one. AI does the extraction but the user has to own what gets submitted, so locked read-only fields would create exactly the wrong feeling. Editable fields that surface the extracted value flip the dynamic from rubber-stamping to...

I like the clean interface + UX decision you made.

Goated work

One detail I would want in this review step is a link from each extracted value back to the source region. A wrong date can still look perfectly plausible in an editable field. Did you include a document crop or highlight beside the field, and how did you balance that extra context against keeping the form compact?

This is a smart UX pattern letting users review and edit AI-extracted data builds trust without adding extra friction.

Editable fields are the right call. OCR is never perfect, so letting people correct the extraction keeps trust instead of forcing a restart.

Nice Design

Would you keep the user's corrections if they upload the document again? Having to fix the same date twice would make this flow feel much less helpful.

the checklist showing which document is already confirmed before you open the next one is what actually kills the anxiety here, not the editable fields

Letting people check what the OCR found before it's saved is the part most onboarding flows skip