What’s inside: output checking · monitoring
The question this file answersWhat does my accountant actually do at month-end — matching lines by eye, or explaining the few that will not match?
Fits: finance teams whose reporting and close packs are assembled by hand from several systems.
Typical pattern, not a measured desk; the finance playbook has no reconciliation volume. Bank CSV, ledger extract and statement sit side by side; an accountant ticks matching lines by hand before reaching those needing a journal story. It sits in front of everything else in close week.
On the first morning of close the accountant opens a list of the genuine breaks — an unknown receipt, an FX difference, an intercompany line — rather than the whole month's statement. The clearing is now a review; the explaining remains the skilled work it always was.
Typical, not a measured client result. Every figure here comes from the playbook source named below.
the same three-way build as AP invoice matching — no published figure for bank reconciliation
Before: month-end is a CSV, a ledger extract and a highlighter. After: in-tolerance lines are proposed as cleared; the breaks arrive labelled. No percentage — the borrowed AP and reporting figures live on the parent files.
Ardent Partners and IOFM (2023) measure invoice processing and EY (2023) measures regulatory-report preparation; neither is bank reconciliation, so both ranges stay on their own files and this one shows no percentage. Not a close-time claim.
Your ledger stays — SAP, Oracle, Dynamics or the one you run — and your bank feed stays whatever the bank provides. This is the same three-way checking build as our AP invoice matching, turned to cash:
Journals are still yours.
Unknown receipts. FX differences. Intercompany. Anything that needs a journal story.
Not a close-time claim.
If references on your bank lines are truncated or missing — common with some banks — the match rate is low and the review list long until matching rules are tuned to your counterparties. FX, intercompany and unknown receipts are outside the build by design; those lines still need someone to write the journal.
The path: free 60-second estimate → free 20-minute review → paid audit of this one process (€1.5–3K, typically two weeks) → pilot with your people in the loop (€10–20K, weeks, not quarters). No transformation programme. Prices are public, on the services page →
Scoped in the audit — the playbook has no estimate for this exact desk.
That depends on your volumes and wage costs — this page will not invent the number. The free 60-second estimate runs that calculation from your answers, with every multiplier sourced.
Not a named Aperanda client. Process file · Finance.
Short process file. Same build as its parent file; the playbook has no separate volume or benchmark for this desk.