Selected Screens
Engyon is a Rotterdam-based startup building AI-powered audit management software for the era of mandatory sustainability reporting. Founded in 2024, they raised €1M in seed funding in early 2025 and validated their platform in a closed beta with around 15 accounting firms across the Netherlands. Their timing is sharp: the EU's CSRD legislation has created an entirely new category of audit work, and the incumbents, tools built for financial audits, simply weren't designed for it.
The platform serves two primary user types: partner-level auditors at SME accountancy practices, and RAs (registered accountants) who manage ongoing audit dossiers for multiple clients. The core job-to-be-done is audit case management, tracking the progress of an engagement from kickoff through to sign-off, with AI running underneath to automate checks, flag anomalies, and surface relevant controls. The product is structured across three levels: the Office view (Kantoor), where a firm sees all active engagements; the Audit level, where a specific client dossier lives; and the Audit Parts level, where individual sections and tasks are completed.
When I came in, the product had been built almost entirely from an engineering perspective. The team was sharp and moving fast, but the design hadn't kept pace with the product's growing complexity. The dashboard was fragmented across the three levels with no consistent logic tying them together. Users couldn't tell at a glance what was done, what needed attention, or where they'd left off. There was no sense of guidance or forward momentum in the interface. The visual execution made it worse: the dark mode treatment relied on glowing shadows and high-opacity overlays that looked more like a gaming UI than a professional audit tool. For RAs spending hours in this interface managing client dossiers, it was tiring to look at and hard to parse.
I ran several deep-dive sessions with the founders, using real audit dossiers to trace how a partner-level auditor would move through an engagement from start to finish. I paired that with a structured heuristics review against Nielsen's 10 heuristics, marking every violation I found. The broken paths and inconsistent menu patterns showed up quickly. More importantly, the sessions surfaced the single biggest missing thing in the design: progress visibility. Auditors had no reliable way to know how far through an engagement they were, what had been completed, and what was still open. In a workflow built around completion and sign-off, that's a fundamental gap. The synthesis was clear: the design needed to communicate state and guidance, not just display data.
The design system we established defined a clear elevation model: background layers, surface layers, and interactive/highlight layers with defined colour values and shadow rules, giving engineering a shared visual language to apply consistently as they continued building. The dashboard redesign focused on hierarchy and completion state: horizontal progress bars showing completion at a glance, KPI cards surfacing the metrics that matter for triage, and a gauge component communicating overall engagement health without mental arithmetic. Broken journeys were catalogued and fixed systematically. These weren't glamorous fixes, they were the difference between a tool RAs could rely on and one that quietly eroded trust every time they hit a dead end.
"In audit software, the interface's job is to make completion feel inevitable, not optional."