Financial controllers review an agent's decisions at two levels: the entry and the close. For each entry, they read the record, find the deciding bound, trace figures to support, check account and period, and decide with a reason. Across the close, they analyse what the agent posted alone, because the accounts are the sum of its entries.
Why review the close as well as the entries?
A finance agent that posts routine entries at depth 3 can make thousands of correct postings and a few subtly wrong ones. Each wrong one is small. The pattern only shows at account level: an expense line that grows faster than activity, an accrual that never reverses, a clearing account that never quite clears. Controllers already do analytical review at month end. With an agent, that review becomes the main control over unattended work.
What are the steps for an entry?
- Read the verdict and the deciding bound. A hold on the business's own limits is a value or type threshold; a source hold means a feed or document was missing.
- Trace each figure. Sub-ledgers and bank statements are sealed; business unit estimates are declared; supplier statements are external.
- Check account and period against the chart of accounts and the cut-off.
- Check segregation. The agent prepared it; the approver must be independent of the rules that drove it.
- Decide. Approve, edit or reject.
- Record the reason in terms an auditor can follow.
What does close-level review look at?
| Area | What to look at | What it can reveal |
|---|---|---|
| Account movements | Month-on-month changes against activity | Mis-mapped costs, duplicated postings |
| Agent-posted entries | Sample by account and value | Rules that are slightly wrong |
| Reconciliations | Unexplained differences and their age | Write-offs hiding a recurring cause |
| Accruals | Reversal and true-up | Estimates that never get corrected |
| Overrides | Entries controllers edited or rejected | Where the agent's rules diverge from policy |
| Held volume | Number and type of holds over time | A change in the agent or a source |
What may the agent do, and what stays with the controller?
The agent may reconcile, match, draft and post routine entries within approved templates. The controller decides judgemental entries, write-offs, material reclassifications, and anything that moves money. The hard limits are covered in what financial controllers should never let an AI agent do. Every decision is filed, so either kind can be reconstructed at audit.
An example: an expense line that grew
Take a regional logistics company. During month-end analytical review, a financial controller notices that vehicle maintenance costs rose sharply while fleet activity was flat. They pull a sample of agent-posted entries in that account. Several supplier invoices for tyre purchases, which the business capitalises above a threshold under its policy, were expensed. The record shows the agent mapped by supplier, and the tyre supplier had historically supplied only small repairs.
The agent followed its rule correctly. The rule was incomplete. The controller edits the entries to reclassify the qualifying invoices, records the reason, and asks the agent's owner to add the capitalisation threshold to the mapping rules. The agent is re-certified on that capability before posting maintenance invoices again. Practice in two markets is described in AI agent training for financial controllers in logistics in Singapore and in Spain.
Which controls make review hold up at audit?
- Analytical review covers agent-posted entries explicitly, with a documented sample.
- Edits and rejections carry reasons that cite policy.
- Changes to the agent's mapping rules go through change control and are approved by someone other than the reviewer.
- A certification run that falls short and lowers the agent's depth is logged in the close file so a jump in held entries is understood.
- Controllers who approve held items hold a current reviewer credential, such as Certified Pryme Operator from Pryme Intelligence Academy.
Neighbouring roles review on similar lines; see how credit controllers review an AI agent's decisions. The role map is in AI agent skills by role.
Questions people ask
How large should the sample of agent-posted entries be?
Large enough to cover each account the agent posts to in a quarter, weighted towards higher-value and judgemental accounts. Document the method so auditors can rely on it.
Should controllers re-perform the agent's reconciliations?
Not every one. Review the exceptions and differences, sample the clean ones, and re-perform fully after any change to the agent or its sources.
Who signs off the close when an agent did most of the posting?
The controller, as before. The agent changes how entries are prepared, not who is accountable for the accounts.