The team sees sales in each channel and deposits in the bank, but the month-end handoff does not explain how fees, refunds and timing connect those views. Each person keeps a different spreadsheet of exceptions.
The starting point
The founder wants to compare channels, while operations needs a close process that does not depend on memory. In this fictional setup, the accounting file receives summarized activity but the team has not agreed who reviews the remaining differences.
The work to define
The first conversation separates the recurring close from any historical cleanup. It identifies which reports are available, how transactions and payouts are connected, and which inventory inputs arrive from the warehouse.
An engagement would then specify the reconciliation work, the review responsibilities and the expected handoff. The sample deliverables show that structure; they are not evidence of completed work.
The approach
Map the money movement
List the channel and payment reports used in the close, the relevant dates and the person responsible for each export.
Agree the handoff
Document how settlement activity, inventory information and open exceptions reach the close owner.
Make unresolved items visible
Keep a shared exception log with an owner and next step, rather than silently adjusting the difference.
What the work could produce
Channel and payout source map
Close checklist and responsibility matrix
Example reconciliation notes and exception log
Management-pack outline with written definitions
Adding a channel changes the handoffs as well as the reports. A documented source map is a useful place to begin.
This scenario illustrates an engagement design. No reconciliation was performed, no client system was accessed and no improvement in close time or financial results is claimed.
All cases