I find this interesting from a professional perspective - A lot of companies employ manual input of information, my experience being in finance. Often a hand-

I find this interesting from a professional perspective - A lot of companies employ manual input of information, my experience being in finance. Often a hand-written copy of a form in input to a system. Mistakes can involve financial loss. An often used 'solution' (often applied in finance) is to use a 'maker / checker' system where an individual (maker) inputs a field, and a checker checks what the maker input. [A checker is often ranked an order of corporate seniority over a maker.] For large value or sensitive transactions, a string of checkers may be applied (or suggested as remedies where accuracy is seen as a problem). But... adding checkers rarely improves error rates. Checkers tend to trust Makers, and Makers tend to trust Checkers. More Checkers means more trust / less care - adding checkers can often make the chance of a mistake occurring higher. A HNer may now suggest incentive structures, independent makers, technological solutions including drawing analogies with reCaptcha. I have done the same. Some operations companies do tried varied approaches, but many, including the largest of financial companies, do not for varying reasons. Not least as Operations departments of large multinationals have been squeezed by budget cuts of 10% per year for more than half a decade - some leads to outsourcing or offshoring, some moving the effort to the 'creator of cost' (i.e. changing the paper form to an input form). I feel it would be an interesting challenge to sell something to enterprises seeking very high levels of accuracy (by which I mean, something in the order of 99.9% for non-standardised poorly scanned hand-written forms often including numbers, names and addresses).