Finance teams
Get the decisions, not the list.
A list of things that look odd is not help — somebody still has to work through it. A review does the working-through first and hands over only what a person has to settle, with what was ruled out attached.
3-day trial with full access, no card. See what comes after it.
The same work, before and after.
Most of what a review turns up has an ordinary answer. Finding that out is the part that costs your week.
How it goes today
- A report comes back with a list of items that look unusual.
- Most of them turn out to be the rent, a refund, or a supplier who bills twice a month.
- By the third false alarm nobody opens the report, which is worse than never running it.
- The ones that were real got explained to somebody, and the explanation is not written down anywhere the next run can see.
With a review in it
- Nothing reaches you until the ordinary explanations have been tested against it.
- A regular monthly payment about a month apart is settled as a standing arrangement, not put in front of you as a repeat.
- A standing decision your team approved — this supplier bills twice a month, under this amount — settles the same thing next month too, named and attributed, and withdrawable.
- What arrives says how much was ruled out and what is still open, in that order.
- Nothing is written back to any accounting system and no journal is posted. The review reads; you decide.
The measure is not how much it finds. It is how little of what it finds turns out to be nothing.
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.
The 2 that never reached anybody.
Both of these would have been on a list for somebody to work through. Both were closed by the review, and both are shown here with the reason — because something settled that you cannot see and cannot reopen is not help, it is a claim that the product is never wrong.
Possible duplicate payment
2 identical payments of 1,800.00 to Rimos Nuoma
Settled without you — A regular monthly payment
Two payments of the same amount to the same supplier, about a month apart. That is a standing arrangement, not a repeat — so nobody was asked about it.
You can open this at any time. Nothing is hidden because it was settled.
| date | supplier | amount (EUR) | file | row |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-01 | Rimos Nuoma | 1,800.00 | northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv | line 35 |
| 2026-03-02 | Rimos Nuoma | 1,800.00 | northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv | line 3 |
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.
What was looked at before this reached you
3 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
- All in one currency — EUR
Not ruled out, and said so rather than assumed
- Not a regular monthly payment — 29 days apart
- 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.
Possible duplicate payment
2 identical payments of 610.00 to Jonas Fuel Card
Settled without you — A rule this workspace approved for Jonas Fuel Card
The fuel card is billed twice a month, once per site, and the two bills are frequently the same size.
Approved by M. Kazlauskas. You can open this at any time, and withdrawing the rule brings it back.
| date | supplier | amount (EUR) | file | row |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-05 | Jonas Fuel Card | 610.00 | northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv | line 7 |
| 2026-03-19 | Jonas Fuel Card | 610.00 | northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv | line 22 |
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.
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 — 14 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.
A rule is your team’s own standing decision, written down and approved by a named person. It is matched narrowly — one supplier, one amount band — because a rule that matches too much stops surfacing real problems and nobody would ever know.
Synthetic data. The wording and the figures 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.
Let the routine questions be looked into. Get the decisions that matter.
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.