Skip to main content

Transcript Matching

Campus AI workflow

Production

Matches incoming transcripts to student records, scores its own confidence, and sends the uncertain ones to staff.

  • 60,000Annual workflow volumeApproximate transcripts per year
  • 225/hrProcessing throughputReported workflow rate
  • 99.86%Published accuracy3,700+ records; five reported errors

Accountability

How this use case is governed

Service owner
TritonAI solutions team and the sponsoring student-services owner
Human oversight
Staff review uncertain matches and monitor quality before any broader use.
Measurement plan
Match precision and recall, review volume, processing time, and exception rate.
Data boundary
Public description; student records require approved protected-data controls

Measurement period Production service; accuracy result from the published validation sample of 3,700+ transcript recordsLast reviewed 2026-07-25

Product media

See the workflow in action

Silent screen recording showing confidence-based matching and the staff review interface used to resolve uncertain records.

  • OCR Extraction
  • Confidence Scoring
  • Human Review Queue

How it works

How the workflow fits

The problem it addresses, what it actually does, and how far along it is.

Problem

Transcripts arrive in large volumes with inconsistent layouts, identifiers, and scan quality. Matching them by hand is slow, and getting one wrong has real consequences for a student.

Solution

The workflow extracts candidate identifiers, compares the evidence, and assigns confidence so staff can focus on exceptions. It runs in production with continuous monitoring and human review of uncertain matches.

Current status

In production for UC San Diego enrollment management. The workflow ingests incoming transcripts, extracts candidate identifiers via OCR, compares each transcript with the appropriate student record, assigns confidence scores, and routes uncertain matches to staff for review. The published validation result reported 99.86% accuracy across more than 3,700 records, with five errors; staff review remains part of the service.

Read the published validation note