Practical guide
Review aged reconciliation items with AI
Inspect a fictional account reconciliation for stale, unsupported and post-close-cleared items while keeping preparation separate from approval.
Financial controllers can use AI to organize reconciliation review evidence while keeping preparation, re-performance and approval distinct. This fictional account contains current timing items, one stale unsupported difference and one item cleared after close. It produces a review memo with open questions, not an audit opinion, accounting advice or approval of a real balance.
Reperform the reconciliation equation
Review begins by proving that the schedule bridges the two controlled balances.
The fictional general-ledger balance is 510 units and the subledger balance is 500. The preparer lists reconciling items of plus 18, minus 6 and minus 2, which net to plus 10. Adding that net to the subledger reproduces the ledger balance of 510.
Ask AI to display the equation and signs, then recompute it independently. Confirm the period and account identifiers on both records. A schedule that adds correctly can still contain unsupported or stale items, so arithmetic agreement is the start of review rather than approval.
Classify age and evidence
Each reconciling item should show when it arose, what supports it and who owns resolution.
The plus-18 item arose this month and has a dated settlement file. The minus-6 item is 74 days old and has only an email saying it will clear. The minus-2 item arose at close and has a bank record dated two days later. Record age, source, preparer explanation, owner and expected clearing evidence separately.
Ask AI to structure the item table, not to decide that old means invalid or recent means valid. Verify dates from the fictional records. An email can document an explanation without proving settlement, and a post-close record must be checked against the exact identifier and amount.
Test the post-close clearing item
Subsequent evidence supports clearance only when identity, amount and date match.
The bank record contains the same fictional transaction identifier and minus-2 amount two days after close. Mark the item cleared after close and retain the record link. Do not remove it from the period-end reconciliation, because it was still outstanding at the cut-off.
Ask AI to compare the identifiers and draft the clearing note. Inspect the fields yourself and make sure the record has not been matched by description alone. A subsequent event explains resolution; it does not rewrite what was outstanding at period end.
Escalate the stale unsupported item
Age and missing evidence should create a focused review question rather than an invented clearing date.
The 74-day minus-6 item lacks a settlement record, source-system correction or approved write-off. Keep it open and ask the owner for the underlying transaction, intended clearing mechanism and expected decision date. The exercise does not supply authority to release or adjust it.
AI may summarize the gap and propose questions. It must not infer that the item is immaterial, duplicate, fraudulent or ready for write-off. Those conclusions require policy, evidence and authorized judgment that are outside this fictional packet.
Update the review after new support arrives
A new record should resolve only the condition it actually proves.
A later fictional subledger extract shows that four of the six units were corrected after close, using the matching item identifier. Mark four units cleared after close and leave two unsupported. The period-end bridge remains plus 10, while the open-evidence amount falls from six to two.
Ask AI to update the item version and change log. Reperform both the original bridge and the open-item subtotal. Do not label the full six resolved because one record supports only four, and do not confuse post-close resolution with period-end absence.
Prepare the controller review memo
The memo should state what was re-performed, what cleared and what remains for decision.
Include the 510-to-500 bridge, item-age table, support links, two-unit post-close clearance, four-unit partial correction, remaining two-unit unsupported balance and named owner question. Mark preparation complete and approval pending.
AI can organize the memo and detect missing fields, but the authorized reviewer must assess policy, materiality and any adjustment. Preserve version and cut-off language so a later clearance does not imply the original reconciliation was already complete or approved.
Sources and scope
NIST: AI risk management and human review. Skills England: workplace AI foundation skills.
These references provide general background, not accounting policy, financial advice, validation or endorsement of this exercise. Every organization should use its authorized records, policies, controls and qualified reviewers. The entities, figures, assumptions and conclusions in the worked example are original fictional instructional material. AI can help organize supplied evidence, but it cannot approve a journal, certify a forecast or authorize a financial decision.
Sources: [1] [2]
Sources
- 1.AI RMF Core · NIST
- 2.AI foundation skills for work benchmark · Skills England