Account reconciliation software that ties every balance to its support and explains every difference before anyone signs
Every balance tied to its support, and every difference explained before anyone signs.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that proves each balance-sheet account in the general ledger against independent support, such as a bank statement, subledger, payroll register or schedule, explains any difference and records who prepared and who reviewed it. Account Reconciliation Automation adds seven agents that collect the support, tie it out, cite the cause of every difference and re-perform each other’s work to the cent, so a named reviewer signs a checked number.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Every month the close team has to prove each balance-sheet account against something outside the ledger: a bank statement, the AR aging, the payroll register, the fixed-asset register, an amortisation schedule, a counterparty’s confirmation. Today that proof is a spreadsheet per account, a folder of PDFs and an email chase to treasury, payroll, quality and legal for the support that arrives late or not at all.
The risk sits in the differences. A four-thousand-dollar gap on accrued payroll gets written up as timing with no citation and rolls forward for months. A reviewer signs hundreds of reconciliations they cannot re-perform, a preparer ends up reviewing their own account, and the external auditor asks for the binder again because a tick mark cannot be traced to its source. Inappropriate account reconciliation is one of the recurring causes of material weaknesses in internal control.
Estimated split for the fictional group’s close, by hand (its August close, certified on day 6) and with the solution (the day 4 target). Days are close days and overlap across accounts.
Seven agents collect the support, tie it out, find and cite every difference and check each other to the cent; a named reviewer signs.
Kestrel & Vane Manufacturing Inc., entity 1100 in Dayton, Ohio. September close, day 3 of 6: Monday 5 October 2026, 10:40. Accrued payroll is $4,450.00 off. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Ana’s home is the balance sheet of entity 1100 laid out as a workpaper: GL balance, support, difference, tick marks, preparer and reviewer initials, status. Of 26 accounts due, 15 are certified, 4 of them by the controller’s rule. Above the table the agents have left four items under “Needs you today”: sign 2150 Accrued payroll, settle 1400 where the agents disagree, a $7,180.00 remainder on 2050 GRNI they could not explain, and the warranty claims report still missing for 2300.
“Sign 2150 Accrued payroll · $4,450.00 explained · entry drafted · both agents agree.”
She asks the assistant in plain words, and the answer comes back with its sources. The Q3 operations bonus was accrued at an estimate of $186,000.00 on 2 September (JE 09-1187). The 30 September payroll register shows $181,550.00 approved for 214 employees, on page 3, line 41. The true-up was never booked. The assistant opens the account so she can sign.
The preparer agent’s plan, in 8 steps: it read all 162 September journals to 2150 and classified the cause as an error, confidence 0.97.
Ana clicks a tick and the source opens beside the workpaper: the accrued payroll schedule built from the payroll system, extracted 1 October at 06:12, with the Q3 operations bonus on register line 41 highlighted at $181,550.00. The copy is read-only and carries a fingerprint, so what she sees is what the agent read.
“Read-only copy · fingerprint 8190-965”
The reviewer agent works without the preparer’s notes. It reads its own extract of the trial balance and the raw payroll file for run PR-2026-09-30-B, 2,904 employees, recomputes the difference and gets the same balances, the same $4,450.00, the same cause and the same entry. Because 2150 is high risk, the controller’s low-risk rule cannot certify it, so it goes to a named person.
“Agrees to the cent. GL 1,284,310.42 · support 1,279,860.42 · difference 4,450.00 · same cause and entry.”
Ana signs as reviewer with reason code R2, “Agreed to support; adjusting entry approved”, and confirms she reviewed the support and the cause and is not the account’s preparer. Her signature also approves JE-P-1100-0918, Dr 2150 Accrued payroll / Cr 6120 Bonus expense, $4,450.00, inside her $25,000 limit. The entry is parked in the ERP for Leo Brennan to post, the account is locked for September, and the auditor’s request PBC-062 is ready.
“Signed · entry parked in the ERP as 10-0031 · PBC-062 is ready for the auditor.”
On 1400 Intercompany receivable from KV Services UK the preparer agent explains $7,384.70 as FX revaluation at the 29 September daily rate. The reviewer agent applies FX policy §4.2, the 30 September closing rate, and gets $7,290.12. They differ by $94.58, so nothing goes to a signer. Ana chooses the policy rate; both agents re-run and agree: $7,290.12 of revaluation plus a $94.58 bank charge on the UK side, 28 September, not recharged.
“Nothing goes to a person to sign until both reach the same figure.”
On 2050 Goods received not invoiced the investigator explains $49,286.50 of a $56,466.50 difference: 11 receipts cancelled in receiving between June and August whose accrual was never reversed. The other $7,180.00 it cannot explain after searching 1,214 journals, 4,812 receipts and 3,960 invoices. It hands the remainder to Leo Brennan with its search log and its best lead: two Westbrook Fasteners invoices of $3,590.00.
The investigator never calls a difference timing without a dated clearing event.
The entry drafter has drafted JE-P-1100-0921 to reverse the accrual on the 11 cancelled receipts: Dr 2050 Goods received not invoiced / Cr 5010 Raw material purchases, $49,286.50, with the receiving cancellations cited. The reviewer agent agrees. At more than $25,000 it waits for Helen Marsh to approve or reject with a reason code; agents never post.
“Agents never post. Approved entries go to the ERP as parked journals, posted by the preparer.”
In the auditor’s view, open to entity 1100 and the group workpapers until 31 January 2027, Grace opens PBC-062 and presses “Re-perform the tie-out”. The tie-out rebuilds from the same extracts and reaches the same figure as the workpaper. She asks how the $186,000.00 estimate was set; a cited answer is drafted for Ana to review and send.
“Re-perform rebuilds the tie-out from the same extracts. Nothing changes in the books.”
Across 62 entities, 1,388 of 1,846 reconciliations are certified (75.2%), 612 by rule. 271 are prepared and waiting for review, 141 carry a difference (110 explained, 9 where the agents disagree, 22 unexplained) and 46 wait for support on a clock. The reporter follows up on every late and at-risk account and forecasts certification on day 4, Tuesday 6 October, against day 6 in August.
The same September close, seen by the four people who carry it — what the month looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents collect the support, tie it out, find and cite every difference and check each other to the cent; a named reviewer signs.
Pulls the GL balance and every support source for each account, and requests missing support from its owner on a clock.
Foots the support, agrees it to the GL, places tick marks and computes the difference.
Searches every journal in the period and the source documents, writes a cited cause, classifies it timing, error or policy, and sets an expected clearance date.
Drafts the adjusting entry from the cited cause, with lines, memo and citation.
Re-performs the tie-out independently from raw extracts, without the preparer’s notes, and must reach the same figure to the cent.
Rates every account by the controller’s rules, certifies low-risk accounts by rule when every condition passes, watches for drift and draws the weekly sample.
Tracks every reconciliation against the close calendar, reminds owners before due, escalates late work, and builds the status report, evidence packs and draft answers for the auditor.
Signs high- and medium-risk accounts; the controller owns the rules. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any account, difference or entry, or say what to follow up. Every figure is cited, and the assistant never signs or posts.
Why is 2150 Accrued payroll off by $4,450?
The Q3 operations bonus was accrued at an estimate of $186,000.00 on 2 Sep (JE 09-1187). The 30 Sep payroll register shows $181,550.00 approved for 214 employees (register p.3, line 41). The true-up was never booked, so the accrual is overstated by exactly $4,450.00. The reviewer agent re-performed it from its own extract and agrees to the cent; entry JE-P-1100-0918 is drafted.
Which accounts are still unexplained across the group?
22 reconciliations carry an unexplained remainder, $412,906.38 in all. In the Americas there are two: 3100-2050 GRNI, $40,216.00, with Lucía Paredes, and 1100-2050 GRNI, $7,180.00, with Leo Brennan. None was guessed: each shows what the investigator searched.
Cover Leo Brennan’s accounts while he is out on 8 and 9 October
Leo has 5 open accounts in entity 1100 due before he returns. Nadia Kovač is the backup on all of them and reviews none of them, so segregation of duties holds. Assignments is open with the change ready to apply.
Prepare the auditor’s answer on accrued payroll (PBC-062)
PBC-062 is ready once 2150 is signed: the workpaper, the schedule, the register page, the journal, the drafted entry and both agent runs. Nothing is sent to Harrow Lyle LLP by an agent; a person sends it.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The thresholds and clocks every reconciliation is checked against are settings. Each change applies from the next run and is logged; control limits are locked.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Materiality, entity 1100 | $50,000 | Set per entity · applies from the next run · logged |
| Unexplained difference allowed at sign-off | $0.00 | Locked by the control policy |
| Reviewer agent must agree with the preparer agent | To the cent | Locked by the control policy |
| Entries approved by the reviewer up to | $25,000 | Above it, the controller approves |
| Open item escalated | After 60 days to a supervisor, 90 days to the controller | Editable · logged |
| Support request clock | 2 business days | Editable · escalation when it runs out |
| Preparer due · reviewer due · certification | Close day 3 · 4 · 5 | Editable · follows the close calendar |
| Low-risk certification rule LR-1 | 5 conditions, 5% weekly sample to the controller | Simulate a change, then save it as a new version for the controller to sign |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample close data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate; day 6 is the fictional group’s August close · “typical” = published figures (APQC Open Standards Benchmarking, via CFO.com — monthly close median about 6.4 days, top quartile 4.8 days or less; Ge & McVay (2005) on reconciliation failures among the causes of material weaknesses) · Audit documentation context: PCAOB AS 1215 and AS 2201. Kestrel & Vane Group, Harrow Lyle LLP and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that proves each balance-sheet account in the general ledger against independent support, such as a bank statement, subledger, payroll register or schedule, explains any difference and records who prepared and who reviewed it. Account Reconciliation Automation adds seven agents that collect the support, tie it out, cite the cause of every difference and re-perform each other’s work to the cent, so a named reviewer signs a checked number.
The difference investigator searches every journal in the period and the source documents, writes the cause with the document, page and line, classifies it timing, error or policy and sets an expected clearance date. When it cannot find a cause it says “unexplained”, shows what it searched and hands the remainder to the preparer.
The account stops. Both workings are shown side by side with the amount they differ by, and a person chooses the rule; both agents then re-run. In the working solution the agents disagreed by $94.58 on an exchange rate until the close manager chose the month-end closing rate in the FX policy.
Yes, by a rule the controller writes, and only when every condition passes: the account is rated low risk, the support agrees to the cent, the reviewer agent agrees, no manual journal was posted this month and a person certified it within the last 3 months. Accounts whose balance jumps, take a manual journal or pass the limit are pulled out of the rule, and a weekly sample still goes to a person.
No. Agents never post, sign or edit support. The entry drafter drafts adjusting entries from a cited cause; a person approves them, with the controller approving anything over $25,000, and approved entries go to the ERP as parked journals for the preparer to post.
The auditor gets a read-only view that expires, where every tick opens its source and any tie-out can be re-performed from the same extracts. Questions get a cited draft answer that a person reviews and sends, and the evidence pack for an account or the period is exported fingerprinted.
Yes. Every high- and medium-risk account is signed by a named reviewer with a reason code, a preparer can never review the same account, no difference can be left unexplained at sign-off, and every action by people and agents is on an immutable audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your reconciliation policy, chart of accounts, templates and a sample of past reconciliations with their support — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. Setup connects your systems, maps each account to a template, assigns owners and sets the risk rules and close calendar.
Every variance explained to within 5%, with cited drivers, before the board sees it.
1-min demoAccrual AutomationEvery accrual proposed with its proof by day one, checked so no cost is counted twice.
1-min demoIntercompany ReconciliationEvery intercompany difference explained and trued up at source, with no top-side plug.
1-min demoWe’ll run Account Reconciliation Automation on a sample of your own past reconciliations and their support.