Accounting and bookkeeping firms
Review more clients' data without going through it by hand.
A review takes one client, one period and whatever exports you already pull for them. It works out what it can check, checks it, looks into everything it finds, and comes back with the things a qualified person has to decide.
3-day trial with full access, no card. See what comes after it.
The same work, before and after.
You hold twenty or two hundred clients' books. The work that does not scale is the going-through.
How it goes today
- Somebody opens the export and sorts by amount and by supplier, looking for things that repeat.
- Anything odd is chased down by hand: was that a refund, is that the rent, did the file get imported twice.
- The ones that cannot be settled from the file become an email to the client, and the reply lives in somebody's inbox.
- What was decided last month is in a note, a spreadsheet, or in the head of whoever did it.
- Doing it for a second client means starting the whole thing again.
With a review in it
- You attach the exports and name the client and the period. Nobody picks which checks to run.
- The ordinary explanations are tested first — a refund, the same file added twice, a regular monthly payment, mixed currency, the invoice reference — and the result of each test is written down, including the ones that found nothing.
- What an explanation covers, or a rule your firm approved, is settled without interrupting anybody, and every one of those is listed with its reason.
- What is left arrives as decisions, each with the payments behind it and the file and line each payment sits on.
- A question for the client is drafted for you, and goes nowhere until a person presses send.
The work you are paid for is the judgement. The going-through is what is stopping you taking on the next client.
What one run did.
March 2026 for Northline (a made-up construction group) — 3 files, 2 companies, 55 payments. Synthetic data belonging to no customer, and the figures the checks produced over it.
6
checks applied
3 could not run, and it said why
12
candidates investigated
6 ordinary explanations each
2
settled without a person
listed, with what settled each one
6
decisions handed back
with rows, file and line
6 things need your decision. 2 resolved without you. Walk through the whole run.
One client, two exports, one payment in both.
This is the decision as it arrived: 2 identical payments of 1,240.50 to Vilnius Concrete. The two payments are not in the same file — one is in the payments export and one is in the ledger export for Northline Build. Checking that by hand means opening both files and lining them up.
What was looked at before this reached you
4 of 4 ordinary explanations ruled out
- Not a refund against its own invoice — all of these move money the same way
- Not the same file imported twice — these come from different rows
- Not a regular monthly payment — 0 days apart
- All in one currency — EUR
Not ruled out, and said so rather than assumed
- Which companies these payments belong to — all from the same company
Could not be checked from these files
- Invoice reference — the file has no reference column, so this could not be compared
Neither for nor against. A column the file does not have is not evidence about the payments, and it is not counted as any.
Why these were put together
- Same supplier — Vilnius Concrete
- Same amount — 1,240.50, exactly, on every one
- Paid 2 times — all on 2026-03-05
The payments, with the file and line they came from
| date | supplier | amount (EUR) | file | row |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-05 | Vilnius Concrete | 1,240.50 | northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv | line 8 |
| 2026-03-05 | Vilnius Concrete | 1,240.50 | northline-build-ap-ledger-2026-03.csv | line 2 |
Open the file named above at the line numbers given and you are looking at the same payments this finding was built from. Nothing was summarised on the way here.
How the amount is worked out
amount × (number of payments − 1)
- amount
- 1,240.5
- number of payments
- 2
- amount involved
- 1,240.50 EUR
One of them was presumably meant to happen, so it is everything after the first that is worth asking about.
What to check
Check whether every one of these 2 payments to Vilnius Concrete was meant to go out. If one was not, it is 1,240.50 to recover.
The question drafted for the client
We found 2 payments of 1,240.50 to Vilnius Concrete. Were they all meant to go out, or is one of them a repeat of the same invoice?
It is drafted and not sent. When somebody in your firm sends it, the client sees one question and the payments it is about — not your other clients, not the rest of this client’s books, and not what else the review found. They can answer yes, no, or that they are not sure, and the answer comes back attached to this.
Synthetic data. The wording, the payments, the file names and the line numbers are the ones the review produced.
What it will not do for you.
There is no connection to Xero, QuickBooks or Sage and no bank feed; it works from exports. It does not read invoice documents, does not convert between currencies, writes nothing back to any accounting system and sends nothing to a client until a person presses send. A review also reports what it could not check in the period you gave it:
Bank against ledger
Ticking every ledger payment off against the bank statement. Needs a bank export for the same period.
Invoice against payment
Matching each payment to the invoice it settles. Needs an invoice or purchase-order source, which the product cannot read yet.
Supplier statement against ledger
Working through a supplier's statement line by line. Needs a supplier statement source.
Review more client data without checking every transaction by hand.
One client, one period, the exports you already have. You keep every decision.
A finding is something worth a human look, not a conclusion and not accounting advice — you decide what each one means.