Correct a closed month without losing the reviewed history

Triage the new information

Ask four questions:

1. What fact or document changed?
2. Which transaction and performance period does it concern?
3. What has already been reviewed, reported or filed?
4. Is the effect material or recurring?

A corrected supplier invoice may change VAT and expense details. A duplicate bank import may only change reconciliation. A newly discovered contract can change the interpretation of several months. The correction path follows the substance, not the file upload date.

Correction decision record

This record should link to, not replace, the original evidence.

Safe workflow

1. Freeze further ad hoc edits while the issue is assessed.
2. Capture the original state and the newly received evidence.
3. Recalculate the effect independently.
4. Identify reports, exports and filings that consumed the old value.
5. Obtain the accountant’s decision on period and correction mechanism.
6. Implement with a reason, author, timestamp and evidence links.
7. Re-run affected reconciliations and close checks.
8. Notify downstream users when their report changed.

Example: duplicate payment after close

April was approved, but in June the team learns that a €1,500 April transfer was imported twice. Removing the duplicate may alter a clearing balance and reports already sent to management. Before changing it, the team preserves both imported records, proves that one is a duplicate rather than a second payment, identifies affected exports and records the approved correction. The original bank evidence remains attached to the surviving transaction.

Professional boundary: Whether an earlier period or tax filing must be amended depends on the facts, materiality, accounting framework and procedural law. Obtain professional advice rather than following a universal “always reopen” rule.

From new evidence to a revalidated handoff

Assume a March supplier invoice for €1,190 was prepared, matched to the bank payment and included in the March handoff. In May the supplier sends a corrected invoice for €1,130 and a €60 repayment appears in the bank.

DeinHans can keep the old evidence, new document, related payment, question and review decision connected. A material change should reopen the affected preparation and review rather than merely changing a number. The software does not decide whether a VAT return must be amended or which period receives the correction; that remains a professional decision under the engagement.

Prevent recurrence

After the correction, ask why the issue passed the original controls. Improve an evidence or review step when appropriate, but do not encode the single case as a broad automatic rule. A prevention measure should state the observable condition, reviewer action and expected evidence, so legitimate future exceptions remain reviewable.

Materiality and downstream map

Materiality is not only the amount. A small VAT classification error repeated across hundreds of transactions, a change to a covenant report or a correction involving authorization can deserve prompt escalation. Ask the accountant which quantitative and qualitative factors apply to the engagement.

Map every consumer of the original result: management report, VAT return, DATEV package, customer or supplier balance, bank reconciliation and period close. Mark whether each needs regeneration, notification or no action. This prevents the source correction from being complete while an exported report still carries the old value.

Correction register

Maintain case ID, discovery date, affected event and period, original and corrected values, reason, evidence, decision authority, downstream actions and completion date. Review the register each close for repeated causes and outstanding notifications.

When the error arose from missing facts, improve the question or collection process. When it arose from a reviewer override, examine the evidence and workload. When it arose from a system change, retest the affected population. Prevention should address the actual cause instead of adding a generic approval step to every transaction.