Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Audit Technology topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

State Auditor unveils "Hamilton" platform to convert government financial reports to machine‑readable format

Rules Review and General Government Oversight Committee · January 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The State Auditor presented "Hamilton," an ACFERS processing platform designed to meet the Financial Data Transparency Act's machine‑readable requirements; the auditor said a pilot processed 250,000 documents and cost about $5,000, and the office plans beta testing within 6–9 months and full deployment within 9–12 months to meet FDTA deadlines.

The Office of the State Auditor demonstrated a new tool the office says converts annual comprehensive financial reports into machine‑readable, FDTA‑compliant data.

Described as "Hamilton" (High accuracy accounting, machine readable interpreted ledger), the platform is built to preserve accounting context while producing interoperable data in line with the Financial Data Transparency Act. The auditor said Utah processed 250,000 documents during a pilot and completed a 30% analysis sample at a reported cost of $5,000—something the auditor contrasted with manual conversion that could take more than a year and carry higher error rates.

"We processed 100% of those 250,000, analyzed 30%. Thirty percent analysis in an audit is unheard of, and we are on the way to doing a 100% just based on what we've been able to complete," the auditor said. The office said it aims to enter beta testing in 6–9 months and full deployment within 9–12 months to meet national FDTA timelines that require machine‑readable financial data by December 2026.

The auditor framed Hamilton as a state‑developed, auditor‑designed tool that could be open‑sourced and supported nationally. Committee members asked for a follow‑up calculation comparing time and staff cost savings under Hamilton versus manual processing; the auditor agreed to return with a quantified analysis.

The committee welcomed the presentation and asked the auditor to provide additional cost‑savings metrics at a later meeting.