Keep proposed corrections separate from posted corrections

Keep a proposed correction out of the completed column

Separate proposal, approval and posting so the reviewer knows which work is still outstanding.

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.

The distinction protects handoffs between the investigator, reviewer and person allowed to make the correction. One person may hold several roles, but the evidence for each transition should remain visible. Do not use an administrative checkbox as permission to make an accounting change.

Define evidence for each transition

A proposal should state the observed issue, supporting sources and intended correction for review. Approval should name the authorized reviewer and scope. Implementation should identify affected records and the action taken. Verification should record the relevant recheck and any remaining discrepancy. Preserve rejected proposals as history rather than rewriting them into accepted ones.

Intuit: Audit log describes activity recorded in the audit log. Intuit: Reconcile an account describes statement comparison. Those records can help verify what changed and whether the relevant comparison now agrees. The proposed state model adds the decision trail, which may not be explained by an application event alone.

Follow a fictional correction

The example below uses an invented duplicate-record investigation. It illustrates workflow states without prescribing a deletion or journal entry for a real case.

If the operator cannot carry out the approved action, retain implemented as incomplete and report the obstacle. If verification finds another issue, keep the exception open or create a linked case as appropriate. Do not mark the whole process done merely because approval was obtained.

Handle changes to the proposal explicitly

New evidence can change what the reviewer approves. Record the revised proposal and whether prior approval still applies. An operator should not improvise a different correction when the original instruction cannot be followed. Return the changed scope to the authorized decision maker and preserve the reason.

• Link the proposal to the observed discrepancy.
• Record approval authority and exact scope.
• Identify the records changed during implementation.
• Keep implementation evidence separate from approval.
• Verify the result against the relevant sources.

If a correction affects a previously reviewed period or connected work, identify that impact for the practitioner. The exception register should not imply that a local change is isolated when downstream reports or reconciliations may need reconsideration. Record the authorized follow-up rather than making assumptions about the effect.

Audit closed exceptions for all four stages

Sample closed correction cases and check whether the proposal, decision, implementation and verification can be located. A missing stage may indicate incomplete work or incomplete recording; investigate which before reopening or changing records. The aim is a reliable trail, not additional paperwork without purpose.

Use the related workflow guide for the wider exception process and the workflow audit checklist to inspect handoff gaps. A useful workflow test includes an approved correction that cannot be implemented and an implemented correction that fails verification, since a single done state cannot represent either accurately.