In this article
Key takeaways
- Read the reason for the flag before opening the entire case history.
- Distinguish incorrect data from incomplete evidence and accounting judgement.
- Resolve the affected entry or balance, then verify the result.
- Similar-looking flags can require very different actions.
Sort by consequence and missing evidence
Use a short triage table when organising the review:
| Observed issue | First evidence to inspect | Required result |
|---|---|---|
| Extracted amount disagrees with the invoice total | Original amount and net/VAT calculation | Correct amount used once |
| Same invoice appears twice | Supplier, invoice number, content and existing entry | One business event recorded |
| Receipt could clear two open invoices | Payment reference and remittance advice | Documented allocation |
| Tax treatment depends on an unknown service | Contract, invoice details and business facts | Supported professional decision |
| A reviewed case changes later | Changed field and prior review basis | Affected conclusion checked again |
The last two cases should not be cleared merely because the arithmetic balances. The reviewer needs the missing fact or the changed evidence.
Case 1: correct the reading before reviewing the accounting
A scan of a repair invoice is read as €1,180 gross. The original shows €1,000 net, €190 VAT and €1,190 gross.
The totals establish a €10 extraction error. Correct the gross amount to €1,190 and check that the resulting entry contains €1,000 expense, €190 input VAT and €1,190 payable, assuming the ordinary domestic input-VAT conditions are met.
The review note can be brief: “Gross amount corrected from €1,180 to €1,190; original invoice and net/VAT total agree.” The useful outcome is the corrected entry and payable. A generic “AI checked” note would not explain what changed.
Case 2: two files, one purchase
The same €428.40 invoice arrives as a PDF and a phone photo. Both show the same legal supplier, invoice number and service. There is one €428.40 bank payment and one existing entry.
Treat the second file as additional or duplicate evidence for that existing purchase. The expected result remains one €428.40 liability and one settlement. Merely attaching both files should not create another expense.
If two entries already exist, removing an attachment does not repair the ledger. Identify and correct the duplicate entry through the appropriate correction process, then check both the supplier balance and the bank allocation.
This distinguishes a document problem from a posting problem. The same visual “duplicate” signal can point to either.
Case 3: the total matches, the allocation does not
A customer has invoices for €300 and €500. A payment of €500 carries the €500 invoice’s number, but the proposed allocation clears €300 from the first invoice and €200 from the second.
The proposed allocation balances numerically. It nevertheless leaves the wrong invoice partly open. Use the explicit payment reference to allocate all €500 to the second invoice. The remaining balance is €300 on the first invoice, with its own due date.
The control result is more precise than “customer balance €300”: the correct invoice remains outstanding. That matters for reminders, disputes and month-end ageing.
Close the review with an observable result
For each case, record the disputed fact, decisive evidence, action and resulting balance. Keep the note next to the affected record. If several cases share one explanation, confirm that the explanation actually applies to all of them before reviewing them together.
Hans shows reasons and evidence for review, supports grouped routine review and individual exception review, and uses the accountant agent to investigate journal and balance questions. Required controls and the configured permissions still govern which changes can be applied.
A useful firm measure is the number of cases that had to be reopened because the first review missed a fact or effect. Pair that with review time. Counting approved rows alone rewards speed without showing whether the books became more reliable.
Continue with reviewing a complete booking proposal or documenting a correction after close.
Sources
Sources were checked on 06 October 2026. This article provides orientation and is not tax, legal, or accounting advice.
- German Fiscal Code section 146 – bookkeeping requirements
- German VAT Act section 14 – issuing invoices
- German VAT Act section 15 – input VAT deduction
- Published