Hiring guide
When finance systems disagree: choose the source for each question
By CFO Index · Published
There is rarely one application that answers every finance question. The bank shows settled cash, the ledger shows recorded entries and a contract records agreed terms. When totals disagree, define the question and reconcile the evidence before declaring one system the single source of truth.
Make the question specific enough to resolve
Replace 'What is our cash?' with 'What cleared in these accounts by this cutoff, in each account's currency?' Replace 'What are sales?' with the agreed reporting definition and period. Record the entity, event date, status filters, currency and extraction time beside each source. Two correctly produced reports can disagree because they measure different events. A difference becomes an error only after the relevant scope and rules have been checked.
Assign authority by field, not by application
Use a source map with a named owner and a review rule. The examples below are a proposed management control, not an accounting standard. Authority means the approved starting evidence for that question; it does not mean the source is immune to errors. Keep access and retention within company policy.
| Question | Starting evidence | Required cross-check |
|---|---|---|
| What cash settled? | Bank statement for specified accounts and cutoff | Ledger reconciliation and outstanding items |
| What was invoiced? | Invoice register and issued documents | Credits, cancellations and ledger posting |
| What terms were agreed? | Approved contract and amendments | Commercial owner's confirmation of current version |
| What revenue is reported? | Reviewed ledger and supporting schedules | Accounting policy, period and approved adjustments |
| What might be sold next? | Dated CRM pipeline snapshot | Stage evidence and forecast assumptions, not actual revenue |
Classify the disagreement before changing a number
First test scope and definition: same entity, period, currency and gross or net basis? Then timing: posting date, settlement date or an export taken before an update? Next inspect mapping and duplication, followed by missing or incorrect transactions. Leave an unresolved category when evidence is insufficient. Do not use 'timing difference' as a permanent label without an expected resolution date and the underlying transaction reference.
A bank balance can be right while the ledger needs a correction
Hypothetical example: the bank statement closes at €49,970, while the internal bank ledger shows €48,000. Investigation finds a €2,000 supplier payment already recorded in the ledger but not yet cleared, plus a €30 bank fee not yet recorded internally. Starting from the ledger, €48,000 plus €2,000 minus €30 equals €49,970. The accounting owner should assess and record the missing fee; the supplier payment remains an outstanding reconciling item until its status is resolved. Replacing the ledger balance with the bank total would conceal both explanations.
A matched total is not enough
Microsoft's Business Central guidance describes matching bank statement lines to internal bank entries, including one-to-many matches. It distinguishes unmatched items and provides a reconciliation test report. That product workflow illustrates why transaction evidence matters more than a matching headline balance. In your own process, test identifiers, dates and amounts. Equal and opposite errors can cancel in a total without producing correct customer balances or reliable payment decisions.
Keep a short exception log with a release decision
For each material difference, save the compared records, amount, reason, owner, next action and expected resolution date. Record whether it affects a published metric or an immediate decision. If a source is unavailable, label any substitute as provisional and document its limitation; do not let it quietly become the permanent source. The reporting owner should decide whether to issue the report with a visible qualification, omit the affected figure or wait for evidence. A balancing entry is not a substitute for investigating a discrepancy.
Close the issue at its source
Where a correction is justified, use the responsible owner's normal approval process, then rerun the comparison and retain the evidence. If the reports were both correct but differently defined, fix the labels and reconciliation rather than changing either transaction set. Ask your fractional CFO to hand over the source map, one completed exception cycle and a repeatable check. This complements a KPI dictionary: the dictionary defines the calculation, while the source map explains which evidence supplies it and how disagreements are resolved.