aditya gupta Jaipur, Rajasthan, India 3H AGO

We built an evidence-driven Agentic AI workflow for extracting trustworthy investment intelligence from messy real-estate documents. The problem wasn't simply getting an LLM to read PDFs. Real-estate investment information can be distributed across reports, underwriting documents, valuation materials, rent schedules, spreadsheets, tables, and multiple versions of the same information. A metric such as IRR can also appear several times with different scenarios, dates, classifications, or meanings. Instead of building another "chat with your documents" agent, we designed a controlled agentic workflow around one principle: Don't make the agent smarter. Make the workflow harder to fool. Step-by-step: 1. I start with the business question. The agent receives a request for a specific investment metric for an asset and determines the business context instead of immediately searching for matching words. 2. I resolve the entity by normalizing the asset or entity using aliases, identifiers, relationships, and hierarchy information. This prevents ambiguous names from sending retrieval in the wrong direction. 3. I build a metric-specific plan using governed definitions for important metrics. A definition can include the metric's business meaning, terminology, preferred sources, classifier information, negative cues, and extraction rules. The agent starts with a contextualized retrieval and extraction plan rather than a vague instruction such as "find IRR." 4. I discover the right documents by narrowing candidate source documents with metadata and path-level information before searching the entire corpus semantically. The goal is: Find the right document before finding the right chunk. 5. I retrieve evidence within the selected documents. Only when scoped retrieval is insufficient does the workflow fall back to broader semantic retrieval, keeping the agent's search controlled and auditable. 6. I inspect structured information when necessary. Important investment information frequently lives in tables rather than paragraphs, so the workflow escalates to table-aware processing to inspect rows, columns, schedules, and structured financial evidence. 7. I extract a structured result instead of a long free-form answer. The result preserves the metric, value, unit or context, source document, page or location, and citation information. 8. I validate the evidence by checking the extracted value against the metric definition and relevant validation rules. Depending on the metric, these checks can include unit, scenario, chronology, plausibility, and table-to-text consistency. 9. I resolve conflicts explicitly. If multiple plausible values are found, the agent does not simply select the first result. The workflow applies rules for source precedence, chronology, scenario classification, and evidence strength. If a conflict cannot be safely resolved, the ambiguity is preserved rather than hidden. 10. I produce an evidence-backed result containing the selected metric, supporting evidence, context, and lineage. The result can then become a structured business artifact for downstream analytics, reporting, or decision-support workflows. This is not simply Question → RAG → Answer. The workflow is Question → Understand → Ground → Plan → Retrieve → Inspect → Extract → Validate → Resolve → Evidence-backed output. Retrieval is one capability inside the workflow. The agent coordinates the process, chooses the appropriate tools, follows the retrieval policy, handles structured evidence, and moves the result through validation and resolution. The biggest improvement did not come from giving the model more freedom. It came from giving the model better boundaries, better domain knowledge, better tools, and explicit decision rules. This pattern can be applied beyond real estate to financial research, insurance, compliance, legal documents, due diligence, and other enterprise workflows where an answer needs to be not only useful, but defensible and traceable.