Demo for review · synthetic data only

Cairn: case checks for immigration advisers

Cairn reads every document in a visa file, cross-checks the facts, checks the file against the lodgement checklist and answers INZ letters. It hands the adviser a draft with a page-level source for every point. The adviser reviews, decides and signs off.

Signing in

Four cases, about ten minutes

The case list shows the newest first, so start at the bottom with case 1. Open a case, then open a finished check under Checks. Click any source to see the page it comes from, with the quoted words highlighted.

Ready to lodge: no false alarms

Priya Sample, chef (AEWV) · 6 documents including a passport scan

0 conflicts8 of 8 checked

A clean file comes back clean. Every checklist item is marked checked, each with the page it relied on.
The form says employment started in “March 2024” and the job offer says “18 March 2024”. Cairn compares them at the coarser precision, so this is not reported as a conflict.
The passport is an image. Cairn reads it and recognises its SURNAME / GIVEN NAMES fields as the same name as “Priya Sample”.

Facts that do not agree

Daniel Placeholder, builder (AEWV) · 5 documents

4 conflicts

Date of birth: 14 May 1990 on the form, 14 May 1991 on the passport scan.
Name: “Danial” in the employer letter, “Daniel” everywhere else.
Employment start: 5 August 2024 on the form, 5 September 2024 in the employer letter.
Address: the form says Hamilton since January 2021, but an October 2022 bank statement is addressed to Wellington.
Each conflict shows both sources side by side and a plain question to put to the client.

Not ready to lodge, and nothing glossed over

Sofia Example, aged-care worker (AEWV) · 6 documents

6 pending1 page unreadable

The application form and the job offer are not signed by the applicant.
The birth certificate is in Spanish, with no English translation.
The cover letter lists a Chilean police certificate and a payslip that are not in the file, and a medical certificate “to follow”.
The payslip photo is too blurred to read. Cairn reports it as unreadable, never as clean.

Answering an INZ letter

Daniel Placeholder · a potentially prejudicial information letter, reply due 10 November 2026

deadline verified5 concerns mapped

The reply deadline is taken from the letter's own words, with the quote and the working days left.
Each of the five concerns is matched to the file. English is supported by the test result (band 6.5). The date of birth, start date and address history are only partly covered. There is no evidence of the Australian police certificate.
Cairn drafts what to ask the client for, and an outline of the reply, for the adviser to edit.

What the screens show

Screenshots from the demo; every person and document in them is fictional. The numbers on each picture match the notes under it. Tap a picture to open it full size.

Case list with four cases, document counts, consistency results and pre-submission results — **Docs**: how many documents are in each file.

**Consistency**: case 2 has **4 conflicts**, shown in red because they need the adviser. “Gaps” counts parts of the file a check could not cover, such as an unreadable page.

**Pre-submission**: case 3 has 2 checklist items passed and **6 pending**. “Unable” would count items the file gives no way to judge.

**New case**: give it a label, create it, then upload the documents.

Case 2 page listing five documents, two upload boxes, check buttons and one finished consistency check — The passport is a photo, not text. **“Transcribed by model”** means the model read the picture into text; every finding that uses it tells the adviser to compare with the original image.

An INZ letter goes in its **own box**. It is read only when you prepare a reply and is never used as evidence about the applicant.

Run a **consistency check**, or a **pre-submission check** against the checklist chosen below it.

Finished checks are listed with their result. **Open** shows the detail.

Consistency check for case 2: coverage counts, two conflicts with sources, the passport page with the date of birth highlighted, and the sign-off panel — **Coverage is counted**: 5 documents, 6 pages, 1 transcribed from an image, 0 unreadable, 16 facts extracted, 0 dropped. Nothing is skipped without saying so.

Each conflict shows **both values side by side**, each with its document and page: date of birth 14 May 1990 on the application form, 14 May 1991 on the passport.

**“Drafted by model”** marks wording the model wrote. **“Found by rule + model”** says how the conflict was found; the address conflict below it was found by a fixed rule alone.

Clicking a source opens **that page** on the right with the quoted words highlighted, so each point is checked in one click. For a photo, “Page image” opens the original.

The adviser settles every finding: **Confirm** it, **Dismiss** it with a note, or **Resolve** it.

**Sign-off** records the adviser's name and lists the findings still to settle (here c1 to c4).

Pre-submission check for case 3: one unreadable page, pending items for an unsigned job offer and a missing translation, and the sign-off panel — The **checklist and its version** used for this check (a development sample, not INZ guidance).

**1 unreadable page**: the blurred payslip photo. It is counted and reported, never treated as clean.

Each pending item **quotes the lines it relied on**: the job offer is signed by the employer, but the employee's signature and date are blank.

The Spanish birth certificate's own words, “Este documento no incluye traduccion al ingles”, show that **no English translation** is attached.

**7 findings to settle** before sign-off, including g1, the gap left by the unreadable page.

INZ letter reply for case 4: reply deadline 10 November 2026 with its quote, and the first INZ concern marked partly supported — The **reply deadline**, 10 November 2026, with **8 working days left** (Monday to Friday; public holidays are not counted, so the adviser double-checks).

The **words it came from**, letter page 2: “You must respond by 10 November 2026.” The adviser confirms the date against the letter before relying on it.

Each **INZ concern is quoted** from the letter. Here, q1: the date of birth differs between the form and the passport.

How well the file answers it: **supported**, **partly supported** or **no evidence**, with the documents behind the verdict.

**What to ask the client for**, drafted for the adviser to edit.

Why this is safe to rely on

Every point has a source

Findings quote the page they come from. Code checks that the quote really is on that page before it is shown.

Coverage is counted, not assumed

Every document, page and checklist item is accounted for. What could not be read or judged is listed as such.

The adviser decides

Cairn drafts and flags. Each finding is confirmed, dismissed with a note, or resolved by the adviser, and the check is signed off by name.

Code checks the model

Fixed rules validate what the model proposes, for example dates compared at the right precision and names compared word by word, before anything reaches the adviser.

Trying it yourself

Under New case, give the case a label and create it.
Upload documents (PDF, PNG, JPEG, text). Upload an INZ letter in its own box.
Run a consistency check, a pre-submission check, or Prepare reply for a letter. A check takes about a minute.

Please use only fictional documents. This demo runs on a public test server and is not cleared for real client data. Each check uses a few cents of model credit from a small demo budget.