Integrations

File transfer, API, or both, and how far you integrate depends on how far you want the match to go. Invoice-to-contract needs invoices and rate cards. Three-way matching needs shipment records from the ERP or TMS. Posting results back for accruals needs a write path into finance.

freya by TetriXX AI is cloud-native and API-first, and it sits above the ERP, TMS and WMS while replacing none of them. It also runs standalone: a first deployment can verify invoices against contracts with no connection into your systems at all, which is usually the fastest way past an IT security review. Integration then buys depth, three-way matching and write-back, rather than being the price of entry. REST and MCP endpoints are available either way.

Yes, REST endpoints and MCP servers, in addition to the platform UI and emailed intelligence reports. Teams that want to query verified freight data from their own tools or AI agents can do so directly.

The UI is one surface, not the product.

It is enough if all your rate cards live in the TMS, in structures it models correctly, and your providers invoice in formats it can parse. That is a narrow set of shippers.

Where TMS audit typically stops: surcharges outside the contracted rate structure, invoices from unintegrated providers, contract formulas the data model cannot express, and any three-way match needing shipment data the TMS does not hold. It also cannot check a charge against the market, only against the contract.

The structural limit sits underneath all of those. A large part of any freight bill is variable, moving with fuel, currency, capacity, accessorials and surcharges between one shipment and the next, and most TMS audit modules cannot update those variable costs automatically. They verify against a reference somebody has to maintain by hand, so the moving part of the bill is checked against a stale rate or not checked at all.

No. Messy data is the normal starting condition and handling it is most of the work: invoices as PDFs and scans that differ by provider and country, rate cards in inboxes.

What blocks an audit is missing data: an invoice that never carries the fields needed to match it to a contract. Which of the two you have is what a calibration establishes, before you sign anything.

For a calibration on your own data: details for one or two logistics providers (modalities, trade lanes, rate cards), and two to three months of invoices. That is enough to establish both the error profile and whether your invoice data supports continuous verification at all.

From a freya by TetriXX AI calibration you receive an integrated dashboard with your structured data fully accessible, a detailed calibration report with findings, recommendations and identified opportunities, and a GLEC-based CO₂e emissions baseline across the shipments whose data supports it. It runs under a signed NDA.

The objective is always the same: in production in under three months. That is what we plan against and what we have delivered.

What moves it is circumstance rather than effort: the scope you choose to start with, the modes and markets in play, and how many service providers have to be brought into the loop and how fast each grants access to invoice data and rate cards. The first provider takes longer than the ones after it, which is why scope is normally phased in waves rather than switched on at once.

Implementations run long for three reasons, and none of them is the technology: rate cards that turn out not to exist in usable form, a provider slow to grant invoice access, or an internal security review starting from scratch because the vendor’s evidence was never published. TetriXX AI publishes its framework at tetrixx.ai/legal for that reason.

A real plan needs your real numbers. Send us your spend, modes, geographies and provider count and we will come back with a phased plan for your scope, with the milestones and the decision owners on both sides written down for it.