Workflows · GL and close · Tier 1 · first automations
Balance sheet lead-sheet pack with flux commentary
Thirty-plus account-group tabs, current versus prior month by company, each tied to a summary and initialled by a reviewer. The hours are large and the AI's job is bounded by the tie-outs.
By hand: Monthly, eight to sixteen hours · Any consolidating group.
The card, as it runs by hand
- Input
- A live retrieval from the consolidation system driven by a year and month parameter block.
- What I do to it
- Roll the period, refresh every tab, tie each tab to the summary, run the validation tab, and write the movement commentary per account group.
- Output
- The pack, with a validation tab, movement commentary per tab, and a 'what changed' summary.
- Who checks
- The reviewer initials each lead sheet, looking for unexplained movements and tabs that do not tie.
- How often
- Monthly.
- How long
- Eight to sixteen hours by hand.
- How long now
- Measured in the course after the first governed run, per card. Not estimated here.
As a governed workflow
- Stays in code
- The retrieval, the roll-forward, and the tie-outs. They either tie or they do not.
- The AI does
- Flux commentary per tab, anomaly flags, and the one-page 'what changed' summary.
- A person still
- The reviewer still initials every sheet. The commentary is a draft until they do.
- The log
- Period, retrieval parameters, tabs that failed to tie, reviewer.
AI does the preparation. A named person approves it. Nothing posts to the books without that approval, and every run is recorded.
Where it goes wrong
Commentary that explains a movement the tie-out should have caught. Tie first, explain second.
Why it lands in a room
Very visual. A controller sees their own pack on the screen and knows the hours.