Handle a reconciliation item reopened by new evidence

Link new evidence to the prior closure decision

Keep the earlier conclusion and the reason for reopening together so the reviewer can assess the change without losing the original work.

When an exception needs a supplier invoice schedule, ParseMill can extract the invoice PDFs into Excel and keep source references available for checking. That gives the reviewer a concrete starting point. Bank reconciliation, accounting judgments and posting stay in your accounting system.

A reopened item is a new review event with an old context. It may affect prior work, current work or both. The responsible practitioner should determine the scope and any accounting action; the operations record should make those dependencies visible.

Describe the trigger precisely

Record new artifact reference, arrival date, observed difference from earlier evidence, affected source relationship and decision owner. Distinguish a corrected document from an additional page, an explanation or a better image. Each can change the review in a different way, and not every new file invalidates the prior conclusion.

Intuit: Audit log describes changes recorded in the system. Intuit: Reconcile an account describes statement comparison. These records can support the recheck, while the proposed reopen record explains why it is necessary. A new upload timestamp alone is not enough to determine the effect on a previously reviewed result.

Follow a fictional reopened case

The example below concerns a settlement explanation accepted earlier, then challenged by a newly supplied detail page. The prior decision remains visible while the reviewer reassesses it.

If the reviewer confirms that S22b does not change the accepted relationship, record that result and close the reopen event with its basis. If the earlier conclusion changes, preserve both decisions and identify any authorized correction or downstream review required.

Reopen only the affected work

Use the evidence relationship to identify the checks that need reconsideration. Do not automatically discard every earlier finding, but do not restrict the recheck arbitrarily if the new evidence undermines the whole basis. The practitioner decides the appropriate scope and records the reason.

• Preserve the original closure and supporting sources.
• Identify the new evidence and its specific conflict.
• Record affected work and reviewer responsibility.
• Separate reassessment from any implemented correction.
• Keep the reopened case visible in current reporting.

A reopened case should be counted separately from a newly discovered case in workload reporting. Keep its original detection date as well as the reopen date so ageing can be interpreted. Resetting the only date field loses the distinction between a long-standing issue and a recent change in evidence.

Verify the final current state

After reassessment, check that the selected source, current decision and affected work links agree. A colleague should see why the case was originally closed, why it reopened and what the latest review concluded. Remove misleading current labels while preserving historical decisions.

Use the related workflow guide for the full exception workflow and the workflow audit checklist to examine late-evidence handling. Test a new artifact that changes the conclusion and one that does not, so the process requires a reasoned reassessment rather than automatically reopening every late arrival.