Groups with several companies
One review across companies, not one review per set of books.
A review holds several sources at once — payments exports, payables ledgers, card statements, from more than one company — and compares them against each other. That comparison is the thing a connection to a single organisation's books is not positioned to make.
3-day trial with full access, no card. See what comes after it.
The same work, before and after.
Two companies, two sets of books, one supplier. The comparison nobody is positioned to make.
How it goes today
- Each company is reviewed on its own, because each set of books is its own place.
- A supplier billing two of the companies for the same work is visible only to somebody who happens to look at both in the same week.
- Comparing the two means exporting both and lining them up in a spreadsheet.
- Whatever that comparison established is in the spreadsheet, and the next quarter starts from nothing.
With a review in it
- One review holds the files from every company in the group for the same period.
- Checks compare across files rather than inside one of them, so a payment in one company's export and a payment in another's are compared as a matter of course.
- Each payment carries the file it came from and the line it sits on, so a finding that spans two companies names both files.
- Currencies are reported per source and never added together: two companies reporting in different currencies produce two totals, not one meaningless one.
Most of what a review finds has nothing to do with a second company. This is about the part that does — and about not having to run the same work twice to see it.
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 supplier, two companies, the same amount.
Found by the check the plan calls “One supplier billing two of your companies”, which only means anything when a review holds more than one company at once.
2 identical payments of 3,480.00 to Baltic Scaffolding. One of them is in Northline Build’s payments export and one is in Northline Interiors’s. Neither file contains both payments, so neither company’s own books show anything unusual — the comparison exists only because both files were in the same review.
Which file each payment came from
- 2026-03-04 · 3,480.00 EUR · northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv line 5 · Northline Build
- 2026-03-11 · 3,480.00 EUR · northline-interiors-payments-2026-03.csv line 6 · Northline Interiors
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 — 7 days apart
- All in one currency — EUR
Established, and it makes this worth more of your attention
- Which companies these payments belong to — Northline Build, Northline Interiors
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 — Baltic Scaffolding
- Same amount — 3,480.00, exactly, on every one
- Paid 2 times — between 2026-03-04 and 2026-03-11
The payments, with the file and line they came from
| date | supplier | amount (EUR) | file | row |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-04 | Baltic Scaffolding | 3,480.00 | northline-build-payments-2026-03.csv | line 5 |
| 2026-03-11 | Baltic Scaffolding | 3,480.00 | northline-interiors-payments-2026-03.csv | line 6 |
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
- 3,480
- number of payments
- 2
- amount involved
- 3,480.00 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 Baltic Scaffolding was meant to go out. If one was not, it is 3,480.00 to recover.
Most of what a review finds has nothing to do with a second company.
In this run, 2 of the 6 decisions involved payments from more than one company. The rest sat inside a single set of books, and would have been found with one company’s files and no group at all. Running several companies is not what makes a repeated payment worth looking at; it is what makes one particular kind of repeat invisible to everybody until somebody compares the two.
Different currencies are reported, never added up
Every source in this run declares EUR, so the figures share one code. A group whose companies report in different currencies gets a total per currency and a plain statement that the sources are not comparable — no conversion, and no guessed rate. Adding two currencies together produces a figure that means nothing, and a figure that means nothing is worse than no figure.
Synthetic data belonging to no customer. The whole run, stage by stage.
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 activity across companies and sources in one controlled workflow.
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.