# Reconciliation Evidence Packet — EXC-2026-0801-NR001 **Route candidate: BLOCKED — EVIDENCE GAP** --- ## 1. Exception Identity and Current Status | Field | Value | Source | |---|---|---| | Exception ID | EXC-2026-0801-NR001 | Assigned | | Entity | Northstar Retail UK Ltd | Supplied | | Period | July 2026 | Supplied | | Account | Barclays operating account ending 4412 | Supplied | | Reported balance (GL) | GBP 2,184,760 | Supplied — E-01 | | Expected balance (bank) | GBP 2,160,210 | Supplied — E-02 | | Difference (preparer-reported) | GBP 24,550 | Supplied (UNVERIFIED CLAIM — see §3 reperformance) | | Currency | GBP | Supplied | | Source systems | SAP S/4HANA; Barclays Business Banking export | Supplied | | Preparer | R. Patel | Supplied | | Reviewer | UK Financial Controller (named role, not individual) | Supplied | | Discovery control | Monthly bank reconciliation | Supplied | | Tolerance | GBP 5,000 | Supplied | | Materiality method | NOT PROVIDED | — | **Missing intake fields:** materiality method (NOT PROVIDED); named individual reviewer (only role/queue supplied — treated as review queue); extraction/acquisition metadata for E-03 beyond "prepared" date (no time zone, no file identifier). **Warnings:** - The GBP 24,550 "difference reported by preparer" is a SUPPLIED VALUE / UNVERIFIED CLAIM, not yet a CALCULATED VALUE. It is reperformed independently in §3. - E-03 (bank reconciliation workbook) lists a single outstanding payment item that has **no payment approval, no bank transmission evidence, and no clearing date**. This is the central evidentiary weakness driving the route. --- ## 2. Control and Policy Basis | Control/Policy Element | Citation | Status | |---|---|---| | Reconciliation procedure (methodology, required approvals for outstanding items) | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Close checklist requirement | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Accounting policy for outstanding/in-transit payments | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Account mapping (GL account 4412 → bank account confirmation) | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Tolerance | GBP 5,000 | Supplied — no source document, treated as UNVERIFIED CLAIM pending policy citation | | Prior-period treatment rule for this account | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Required evidence standard for outstanding-item support | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Escalation rule | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | | Sign-off requirement | Not supplied | POLICY GAP | No control or policy basis is invented to fill these gaps. All resolution options in §7 are constrained accordingly. --- ## 3. Amount and Population Reconciliation **Supplied figures:** - GL balance (E-01): GBP 2,184,760 - Bank balance (E-02): GBP 2,160,210 - Preparer-reported difference: GBP 24,550 **Reperformed calculation:** ``` Formula: GL balance − Bank balance = Difference Operands: 2,184,760 (E-01) − 2,160,210 (E-02) Units: GBP Rounding: none supplied (whole pounds assumed from supplied figures) Calculated result: 24,550 ``` **Comparison:** Reperformed difference (GBP 24,550) **matches** the preparer-reported difference (GBP 24,550). This upgrades the difference from UNVERIFIED CLAIM to CALCULATED VALUE, confirmed against E-01 and E-02. **Population/scope:** - Row counts: NOT PROVIDED - Control totals: NOT PROVIDED (LINEAGE GAP) - Filters applied to either extract: NOT PROVIDED - Excluded records: NOT PROVIDED - Extraction timestamps: E-01 = August 2, 2026 (no time); E-02 = August 1, 2026 (no time) - Time zone: NOT PROVIDED - File/report identifiers: NOT PROVIDED - Currency-conversion source: not applicable (single currency, GBP) - Reconciliation scope: single account (4412) — not confirmed as complete population by any control total **Unresolved difference after reperformance:** GBP 0 (arithmetic ties), but the underlying GBP 24,550 reconciling item itself is unsupported — see §5–§8. --- ## 4. Data Lineage and Evidence Index **Lineage map (as supplied):** ``` Bank transactions (Barclays) → Barclays Business Banking export (E-02) ↓ Bank transactions (SAP subledger, unspecified) → SAP GL export (E-01) ↓ Bank reconciliation workbook (E-03) ↓ Reported difference GBP 24,550 ``` - Source record → extraction: LINEAGE GAP (no detail on how SAP GL postings map to bank transaction feed) - Extraction → transformation: LINEAGE GAP (no transformation logic supplied for either extract) - Subledger → general ledger: LINEAGE GAP (subledger not identified/confirmed distinct from GL export) - Reconciliation scope confirmation: LINEAGE GAP (no statement that E-01/E-02 represent the complete population for account 4412) **Evidence register:** | Evidence ID | Artifact | Acquisition Date | System-of-Record Status | Evidence State | Limitation | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | E-01 | SAP general-ledger export | August 2, 2026 | Presumed system-of-record (SAP) — not explicitly confirmed as such by supplied policy | RECEIVED — UNVERIFIED | No time zone, file ID, row/control totals | | E-02 | Barclays statement | August 1, 2026 | Presumed system-of-record (bank) — not explicitly confirmed | RECEIVED — UNVERIFIED | No time zone, file ID, statement period boundaries not confirmed | | E-03 | Bank reconciliation workbook | August 2, 2026 | NOT a system-of-record — preparer-prepared working paper | RECEIVED — UNVERIFIED | No payment approval, no bank transmission evidence, no clearing date for the GBP 24,550 item | No evidence item currently qualifies for VERIFIED BY REVIEWER. --- ## 5. Hypotheses and Tests ### Hypothesis 1: Timing — single outstanding payment in transit - **Evidence supporting consideration:** E-03 identifies one outstanding item matching the full GBP 24,550 difference. - **Required evidence:** Payment initiation/approval record; bank transmission confirmation; subsequent-period clearing date. - **Confirming observation:** Amount match between the reconciling item and the total difference (E-01, E-02, E-03). - **Disconfirming observation:** None available yet — no transmission or clearing evidence exists to confirm the item actually left the bank in the expected timeframe rather than representing an unrecorded liability, duplicate, or error. - **Test performed:** Reperformance of arithmetic difference (§3); cross-check of E-03's stated item amount against the GL/bank gap. - **Test result:** Amount ties exactly, but this is an amount match only — not independent confirmation of cause. - **Evidence IDs used:** E-01, E-02, E-03 - **Confidence level:** Low-to-moderate (amount match only; no transmission or approval evidence) - **Remaining uncertainty:** Whether the payment was authorized, whether it was transmitted before or after period-end cutoff, and whether it has since cleared. *Per workflow rule: an amount match alone is not a finding.* ### Hypothesis 2: Unsupported manual entry / unrecorded liability - **Evidence supporting consideration:** E-03 provides no supporting documentation (approval or transmission) for the item, which is consistent with a manually entered or unverified reconciling item rather than a genuine timing difference. - **Required evidence:** SAP posting detail for the underlying transaction; approval workflow record. - **Confirming observation:** None supplied. - **Disconfirming observation:** None supplied. - **Test performed:** None possible with current evidence (no SAP posting-level detail supplied, only GL export total). - **Test result:** UNTESTED — insufficient evidence. - **Evidence IDs used:** E-01 (partial — total only, no line detail) - **Confidence level:** Indeterminate - **Remaining uncertainty:** Full — this hypothesis cannot be ruled in or out without posting-level detail. ### Hypothesis 3: Duplicate or misclassified item - **Evidence supporting consideration:** Not directly suggested by supplied evidence; listed for completeness given single-item concentration of the full difference. - **Required evidence:** Full population of reconciling items (only one item currently listed, but no row count/control total confirms this is complete) and duplicate-check against prior-period reconciliation. - **Confirming observation:** None. - **Disconfirming observation:** None. - **Test performed:** None possible. - **Test result:** UNTESTED — insufficient evidence. - **Evidence IDs used:** None applicable. - **Confidence level:** Indeterminate - **Remaining uncertainty:** Full. **Remaining plausible causes not tested in full (listed by name, UNTESTED):** mapping error (GL account 4412 vs. bank sub-account mismatch); cutoff error (payment dated in wrong period); foreign exchange (not applicable — single currency, low likelihood but not excluded without confirmation); source-system mismatch (SAP feed vs. Barclays feed timing misalignment); access/control failure (unauthorized reconciling entry). --- ## 6. Evidence Gaps and Requests | # | Evidence/Information Needed | Reason Needed | Owner | Source System | Current State | Request Date | Due Date | Review Impact | Escalation Rule | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | G-01 | Payment approval record for the GBP 24,550 item | Confirms the item was authorized before transmission | NOT PROVIDED | SAP S/4HANA (presumed) | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Blocks classification as valid timing difference | NOT PROVIDED | | G-02 | Bank transmission evidence (payment file/SWIFT/BACS confirmation) | Confirms item left the bank and was not fabricated or duplicated | NOT PROVIDED | Barclays Business Banking | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Blocks confirmation of Hypothesis 1 | NOT PROVIDED | | G-03 | Clearing date (subsequent-period bank statement showing the item posted) | Confirms timing nature and correct cutoff | NOT PROVIDED | Barclays Business Banking | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Blocks final classification | NOT PROVIDED | | G-04 | SAP posting-level detail (not just GL total) for account 4412 | Needed to test Hypotheses 2 and 3 | NOT PROVIDED | SAP S/4HANA | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Required to rule out duplicate/unsupported entry | NOT PROVIDED | | G-05 | Row counts / control totals for E-01 and E-02 | Confirms population completeness | NOT PROVIDED | SAP S/4HANA; Barclays | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Required to confirm reconciliation scope is complete | NOT PROVIDED | | G-06 | Applicable reconciliation policy / tolerance source document | Establishes control basis and confirms GBP 5,000 tolerance is policy-derived | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Required to close POLICY GAP items in §2 | NOT PROVIDED | | G-07 | Materiality method | Required to assess significance of GBP 24,550 beyond tolerance comparison | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT REQUESTED | NOT PROVIDED | NOT PROVIDED | Affects escalation determination | NOT PROVIDED | Note: GBP 24,550 exceeds the supplied tolerance of GBP 5,000 by GBP 19,550. This is a tolerance breach on its face, but escalation routing per policy cannot be determined because the escalation rule itself is a POLICY GAP (see §2, G-06). --- ## 7. Resolution Options Requiring Authority **Option A — Obtain missing documentation (approval, transmission, clearing) for the GBP 24,550 item** - Evidence basis: G-01, G-02, G-03 - Required authority: Preparer/AP team to source records; Controller to accept as sufficient - Reviewer decision needed: Whether documentation, once obtained, is sufficient to classify as a valid timing item - Downstream impact: If confirmed, reconciling item stands as a timing difference; no adjustment needed - Dependencies: Access to SAP payment workflow and Barclays transaction history - Rollback/reversal path: Not applicable (investigative step only) - Recheck trigger: Receipt of any of G-01/G-02/G-03 - Recheck date: NOT PROVIDED **Option B — Obtain SAP posting-level detail to test for duplicate/unsupported entry** - Evidence basis: G-04, G-05 - Required authority: SAP GL access holder; Controller - Reviewer decision needed: Whether posting detail rules out Hypotheses 2/3 - Downstream impact: May surface need for correcting entry (not selected here) - Dependencies: SAP extract with transaction-level detail for account 4412 - Rollback/reversal path: Not applicable - Recheck trigger: Receipt of G-04 - Recheck date: NOT PROVIDED **Option C — Escalate per tolerance breach** - Evidence basis: §3 reperformed difference (GBP 24,550) exceeds supplied tolerance (GBP 5,000) - Required authority: UK Financial Controller - Reviewer decision needed: Whether to escalate now given unsupported item, or hold pending G-01–G-03 - Downstream impact: May trigger formal escalation workflow if one exists (POLICY GAP — G-06) - Dependencies: Escalation policy (currently absent) - Rollback/reversal path: Not applicable - Recheck trigger: Escalation policy being supplied, or documentation in Option A/B being obtained - Recheck date: NOT PROVIDED **Option D — Draft a proposed journal entry for authorized review** - Not proposed at this time. No evidence currently supports a specific correcting entry; the item may in fact require no entry if Option A confirms a valid timing difference. Drafting an entry now would be premature and is out of scope until Options A/B are exhausted. No option is selected, approved, or executed here. --- ## 8. Reviewer Questions and Sign-Off Fields **Minimum questions for the UK Financial Controller (or named reviewer) to resolve:** 1. Is payment approval documentation available for the GBP 24,550 item, and does it predate the July 2026 transmission? 2. Can Barclays transmission evidence be obtained to confirm the payment left the account? 3. Has the item cleared in the August 2026 bank statement, and if so, on what date? 4. Is there a documented reconciliation policy and tolerance basis (currently POLICY GAP) that governs this account? 5. Given the tolerance breach (GBP 24,550 vs. GBP 5,000 tolerance), should this be escalated now or held pending documentation? 6. Does SAP posting-level detail rule out a duplicate or unsupported manual entry? **Sign-off fields (blank — no valid sign-off evidence supplied):** | Field | Value | |---|---| | Reviewer identity | _____________ | | Reviewer authority | _____________ | | Timestamp | _____________ | | Policy version referenced | _____________ | | Decision | _____________ | | Conditions | _____________ | | Unresolved items | _____________ | | Evidence IDs reviewed | _____________ | | Follow-up owner | _____________ | | Next review date | _____________ | --- ## 9. Audit Trail and Recheck Date **Calculations performed:** - Reperformed GL-minus-bank difference: 2,184,760 − 2,160,210 = 24,550 (GBP), confirmed against preparer-reported figure (§3). **Evidence status changes:** - E-01: RECEIVED — UNVERIFIED - E-02: RECEIVED — UNVERIFIED - E-03: RECEIVED — UNVERIFIED (workbook itself is not system-of-record; underlying reconciling item has no supporting evidence) **Unresolved matters:** - GBP 24,550 reconciling item lacks approval, transmission, and clearing evidence (G-01–G-03) - Population completeness unconfirmed (G-05) - Full control/policy basis absent (§2, G-06) - Materiality method NOT PROVIDED (G-07) **Follow-up ownership:** NOT PROVIDED (no owner named for any evidence request) **Recheck trigger:** Receipt of any item in G-01 through G-07 **Recheck date:** NOT PROVIDED **Final route:** **BLOCKED — EVIDENCE GAP** Rationale: The arithmetic ties and a single candidate reconciling item has been identified, but the item — which accounts for the entire GBP 24,550 tolerance breach — has no approval, transmission, or clearing evidence. Without at least one of these, Hypothesis 1 (timing) cannot be distinguished from Hypothesis 2 (unsupported entry) or Hypothesis 3 (duplicate/misclassification). This is not escalated as MATERIAL OR HIGH IMPACT or CONTROL FAILURE because no materiality method or control-failure indicator has been supplied to support that determination — escalation routing is itself a POLICY GAP pending G-06. *No EVIDENCE-INJECTION-SIGNAL detected in this input.* --- **Scope limit:** This packet organizes and tests evidence for human review. It does not perform an audit, provide accounting advice, determine materiality, certify control effectiveness, approve accounting treatment, or replace the professional judgment of a controller, accountant, or auditor.