About
Who you would be trusting with the record, and how we behave. What the system actually does is on the product page — this is the other half of that decision: why it exists, the principles it is built on, and the commitments we will not trade away.
Most organisations do not fail for lack of software. They fail because the sales figure, the bank statement and the stock count each live somewhere different, and nobody can say which is right. Month-end becomes an act of reconstruction: what did we sell, who approved that payment, which version of the policy were we following, where did that file go.
FOERPS exists to remove the reconstruction. Work is recorded where it happens, by the person doing it, with a name attached. Approvals happen before money moves rather than being remembered afterwards. Documents keep their versions and their history. Closed periods stay closed. None of that is a feature you switch on at the end — it is how the records are shaped from the first entry.
The same product runs a one-person business and a multi-branch group, because the difference between them is how much depth each team needs, not whether the underlying ledger should be trustworthy. Simple Mode uses everyday words over exactly the same controlled records — it is a plainer way in, never a weaker database.
It is built for organisations that operate where connectivity, power and specialist finance staff cannot be assumed. That constraint shows up in the product: it runs in a browser on modest hardware, it can be installed on your own infrastructure with AI inference running locally, and it works on your network when the link to the outside world does not.
How we build
These are not aspirations on a wall. Each one settles real arguments about what the product does, and each one costs us something — usually a shortcut that would have been quicker to build.
Anyone can build a screen that captures data. The value is in a record that still means something in three years — attributable, versioned, and impossible to quietly change. Every design argument is settled by asking what the record will look like to somebody who was not there.
Segregation of duties, per-person approval limits, period locks and access reviews are enforced by the system rather than by trust. Seniority does not exempt anybody: an administrator who takes something from a colleague does so by name, with a reason, on the record.
When the system will not let somebody do something, it says who is holding the thing, why it is refused and what to do instead — in a sentence a person can act on. An error code teaches nobody anything and drives work back into email.
Registries, clinical systems, student records and industrial control platforms stay authoritative for their own data. FOERPS owns the internal work around them and declares, per integration, which system owns each fact, so the same figure is never independently editable in two places.
AI can read a receipt, draft a summary or suggest a classification. It cannot post a journal, approve a payment, sign a document or make a hiring decision. Every material output names the person who reviewed it, and an organisation can disable a capability or require inference to run locally.
Registers, reports and documents export in formats you can open elsewhere, with version history intact. A business that wants to move should be able to; holding records hostage is not a retention strategy.
How it was built
The order matters. Breadth added on top of records that cannot be trusted produces a larger unreliable system, not a more useful one.
Foundation
Chart of accounts, journals, receivables, payables, banking and period control, with Simple Mode as a plainer route into the same records rather than a separate lightweight store.
Control
Per-person and per-currency approval thresholds, enforced segregation of duties, delegated cover that expires by itself, scheduled access reviews, and an audit trail nobody can rewrite.
Breadth
People and payroll handoff, sales, procurement and stock, assets with custody and physical verification, fleet logbooks, facility bookings, contracts, meetings, minutes, resolutions and elections.
Records
Versioning, retention, policy review on its own clock, read tracking, check-out so a second version cannot be issued behind somebody, and signing at the assurance level each document type requires.
Now
Terminology, forms, workflow templates and role presets per sector over one core, available as a managed service or as a standalone installation an institution runs entirely itself.
A boundary is worth more than a feature list, because it tells you what you still need and what you can stop worrying about. These are commitments about how we behave, not a description of the current release.
Which specialist systems stay authoritative for their own records — registries, clinical systems, student information, industrial control — is a question about scope rather than conduct, and it is answered in full on the product page.
How your data is handled in practice is set out in the Privacy Policy, and what each side commits to in the Terms of Service.
Deployment
We operate the platform, approve organisations and provide the shared infrastructure. You subscribe and start work.
Your institution runs its own installation on-premises or in a cloud you choose, and administers it locally.
