Breaks found late
Statement lines and ledger entries disagree, and the difference is discovered at month end.
Every exception.
Every approval.
Explained.
Reconciliation and exception review for finance teams and accounting firms. LedgerSight matches bank, receivables and payables data, proposes the next step and keeps the reasoning, the approver and the outcome together, so your close can be explained.
- Works alongside your ledger
- Named reviewer approval
- Evidence behind every decision
Illustration. Input formats, connected systems and approval routing are confirmed during scoping.
Exceptions with contextTiming differences, duplicates and missing references arrive with the lines that explain them.
A person decidesLedgerSight recommends. It does not post entries or make payments on its own.
A record you can inspectSource, proposal, policy, approver and outcome kept in Evidence Fabric.
The finance team’s reality
The books balance. The reasons often don’t survive.
Breaks surface late, cash sits unapplied and, at close, nobody can say why an exception was handled the way it was.
More automation should not turn finance control into a black box. The useful part is a reviewable chain from the source line to the person who approved the resolution.
Unapplied cash
Short payments and receipts without references are found after the fact.
Invoice mismatches
Supplier invoices are paid against the wrong order or a receipt that does not agree.
An unexplained close
The resolution is in the ledger, but the reason and the approver are not.
One place to review what does not match.
LedgerSight is generally available. It works with the finance and operational systems already in use, on the exception and approval workflow around them.
LedgerSight
Matches bank, AR and AP data, flags exceptions and records who approved each proposed resolution.
System of record
Your accounting system or ERP remains the system of record. Connected systems are confirmed in scoping.
TrustOps + Evidence Fabric
The policy boundary before action and the retained record afterwards, not separate products.
Start with the reconciliation that hurts most.
Each workflow needs different source context. Choose one to begin; the others use the same review and evidence pattern.
Bank reconciliation
Statement lines are matched against ledger entries, so timing differences, duplicates and missing references are what a person actually looks at.
- Statement lines
- Ledger entries
- Timing differences
- Duplicates
Cash allocation and collections
Incoming payments are proposed against the right invoices, and the proposal is reviewable before anything is applied. Overdue accounts are ordered by what is worth chasing first, with the reasoning shown alongside.
- Incoming payments
- Proposed allocation
- Overdue accounts
- Collections priority
Accounts payable exceptions
Supplier invoices that do not agree with the purchase order or goods receipt are routed for review with the context that explains why they were flagged.
- Supplier invoice
- Purchase order
- Goods receipt
- Mismatch review
Financial close support
Recurring close checks are gathered in one place, so reviewers see status, open exceptions and the evidence that exists for each. Repeated breaks are surfaced so they stop arriving every month unexplained.
- Close checklist
- Open exceptions
- Recurring patterns
- Evidence status
From source line to approved decision.
Six steps, with the TrustOps boundary applied before any business action and a person at the decision point.
- 01 · READ
Use the data already in use
Bank lines, ledger entries, receipts, invoices, purchase orders and goods receipts.
- 02 · MATCH
Identify exceptions
What does not agree becomes an exception, with the context that explains why it was flagged.
- 03 · PROPOSE
Recommend the next step
Each exception gets a proposal, with the reasoning and evidence shown alongside it.
- 04 · BOUNDARY
Apply the policy
The applicable rule, procedure or approval threshold is checked before any action.
TrustOps: policy before action.
- 05 · APPROVE
A person decides
A reviewer with authority approves, rejects or overrides the proposal.
TrustOps: named authority, no self-approval.
- 06 · RECORD
Keep the evidence
Source, proposal, policy, approval and outcome are written to Evidence Fabric.
Evidence Fabric: the retained record.
One receipt. One difference. A decision you can trace.
A synthetic bank reconciliation case. LedgerSight isolates the difference and proposes a cause; the policy decides who may resolve it.
LedgerSight · Bank reconciliationSynthetic example
- Bank statement receipt
- £12,480.00
- Ledger entry, same reference
- £12,840.00
- Value date difference
- 0 days
- Proposed cause
- Possible transposition
Unexplained difference£360.00
Illustrative values. A difference divisible by nine often points to transposed digits; the reviewer confirms against the source document.
TrustOps · Policy and approvalPolicy example
- OBSERVELedgerSight compares the lines
Statement line, ledger entry and the difference stay attached to the exception.
- ESCALATEFIN-02: difference above tolerance
The exception goes to the named reviewer for the entity and period.
- DENYFIN-04: unapproved journal
An agent cannot post a correcting entry or approve its own proposal.
- RECORDReviewable evidence record
Source lines, proposal, rule version, reviewer, decision and outcome.
The people who own the reconciliation.
Financial controllers
Own the reconciliations and need every cleared difference to have a reason and an approver.
Finance operations teams
Work the exception queue day to day and want context with each line, not another spreadsheet.
Accounting firms
Run the same workflow on client files, with preparer and reviewer sign-off and an audit workbook or evidence export per client.
Lending business? See LedgerSight for lending.
TrustOps operating discipline
ALLOW · FIN-01
ESCALATE · FIN-02
DENY · FIN-03 & FIN-04
AI recommends. People with authority approve.
Every consequential finance action passes through the boundary your team agrees. These are example policies for a reconciliation engagement, not a deployed rulebook.
Review within scope
A reviewer inspects exceptions for the entities and periods they are permitted to access. Access is recorded.
Route the difference
A difference above the agreed tolerance goes to the named approver with the source lines attached.
Keep segregation of duties
Self-approval and unapproved journals or payments are refused under the defined policy.
- Source context
- Model and agent details
- Purpose
- Policy and authority
- Approval or override
- Outcome
Evidence fields, exports and retention are agreed for each deployment. How TrustOps works · Evidence Fabric · Finance exception review checklist
One workflow. Six weeks. A decision you can make.
Start with one reconciliation workflow and a representative dataset. Timing, inputs, delivery format and success criteria are confirmed during scoping; pricing is discussed privately.
Agree the scope
Choose the workflow, sample or redacted inputs, the reviewers and the acceptance criteria.
Review together
Evaluate exception quality, the approval steps and the usefulness of the evidence with your team.
Decide the next step
Check the acceptance criteria and whether a wider deployment fits.
Your control stays
A pilot enquiry does not commit you to a contract.
Clear scope. Clear control.
Which reconciliation should we start with?
Start where unexplained differences cost your team the most time at month end. For many teams that is bank reconciliation; the choice is agreed during scoping with a representative dataset.
Can approvals follow our authority matrix?
Approval routing is agreed with you during scoping, so thresholds and approvers reflect how your team already signs off. Preparer and approver stay separate.
How does it fit our month-end close?
Recurring close checks are gathered in one place, so reviewers see status, open exceptions and the evidence that exists for each before the books are closed.
Who from our team needs to be involved?
The process owner, the people who review exceptions and the people who approve resolutions. IT and security join for the security review before deployment.
We are an accounting firm. Does this work across client files?
Yes, as a scoped starting point. A pilot uses one workflow and a few representative clients, with your preparers and reviewers, and ends with an audit workbook or evidence export in an agreed format.
Do we have to share live financial data to start?
No. Start with sample or redacted inputs. Do not send financial records through the website enquiry form.
LedgerSight product overview · Security review · Evidence standards · Workflow examples
Bring one reconciliation. Let’s make every exception explainable.
Tell us the workflow, the systems involved and who approves resolutions. We will discuss inputs, review points and the evidence your team needs.