Financial controllers keep this log while they approve an AI agent's proposed journals, reconciliation clearances and payment runs over two weeks, ideally spanning a month-end. Each entry captures the item, its supporting evidence and where that came from, the period it lands in, the controller's decision and reason, a reviewer's independent call and any red line.
Why run the practicum across a month-end?
Because that is when a controller's judgement is tested. Mid-month, the agent's proposals are routine: accruals that recur, reconciliations that match, a weekly payment run. At month-end, the queue fills with estimates, late invoices, intercompany differences and pressure to close. A controller who only practises in quiet weeks has not been tested on the decisions that matter. Setup is covered in how to run a two-week practicum for financial controllers.
What does the agent propose, and at what depth?
In a typical finance deployment:
- Journals: accruals, prepayments, reclassifications, drafted at depth 2 with support attached; posting is held for a named approver.
- Reconciliations: the agent matches items at depth 3 within tolerances and proposes clearances or write-offs for anything outside them.
- Intercompany: the agent identifies mismatches and drafts the correcting entries.
- Payment runs: the agent assembles the run; releasing it is depth 4 and held for the controller.
- Close tasks: the agent drafts the close checklist status and flags open items.
How do you fill in the log?
The agent fills in the item details and its proposal from the record. The controller adds the period, materiality, decision and reason. Separately, the reviewer (a group financial controller or finance director with a current certificate) records a decision before reading the controller's.
Support is classified by provenance. The general ledger and bank feed are sealed. An auditor's confirmation or a counterparty statement is signed. A budget holder's estimate is declared. An invoice that arrived by email is external, and an external claim cannot authorise a payment on its own.
The practicum log template
Header
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Controller | |
| Reviewer and certificate | |
| Entities and ledgers | |
| Dates, including month-end | |
| Materiality threshold for review | |
| Bar | At least 95 correct in every 100; no missed red line |
| Red lines | Posting to a closed period; releasing a payment run with an unverified bank-detail change; approving a journal without support; approving an item the controller prepared |
Entries
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| No. and date | |
| Entity and period | |
| Item type | Journal, reconciliation, intercompany, payment run, close task |
| Agent's proposal and verdict | Including deciding bound |
| Amount and materiality | Above or below threshold |
| Support and provenance | |
| Controller's decision | Approve, amend, reject, defer to next period, escalate |
| Controller's reason | |
| Reviewer's decision | Recorded first |
| Match | Yes / no / defensible |
| Red line | None / caught / missed |
| Note |
A worked example
Take a sample group of three trading companies closing month 6. Values are illustrative.
Entry 47. Accrual of 12,000 for consultancy fees in month 6; support is the budget holder's estimate (declared) and a statement of work (signed). Controller: approve. Reviewer: approve. Match: yes.
Entry 48. The agent proposes writing off an unreconciled bank difference of 340 that has aged three months. Controller: reject; trace it first, because three months of a recurring small difference suggests a missing entry. Reviewer: same. Match: yes.
Entry 49. Payment run of 210,000 for 63 suppliers, held for release. One supplier's bank details changed this week following an emailed letter (external), with no call-back recorded. Controller: release the run. Reviewer: release the run with that supplier removed until the change is verified on a known number. Match: no. Red line: missed.
Entry 50. Intercompany mismatch of 8,000; the agent drafts an entry in month 5. Controller: amend to post in month 6, as month 5 is closed. Reviewer: same. Red line: caught.
Entry 49 fails the bar. The run was mostly right, and the volume made the controller treat it as one decision. It is 63 decisions, and the record shows which supplier details changed.
How does this relate to credit control and collections logs?
Credit controllers approve stops and write-offs upstream; the practicum log for credit controllers records those, and the financial controller often sees them again at month-end. The log for collections agents covers consumer arrears rather than trade debt, but uses the same provenance discipline on promises to pay.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator track covers how a governed agent decides, human review, and usage and billing, and Certified Pryme Operator adds a written exam and a two-week practicum on real review decisions. Finance teams can make a controller's right to release payment runs depend on a current certificate. More in AI literacy and certification for people who work with agents.
Questions people ask
Should the controller approve journals the agent drafted from their own instructions?
Treat those as prepared by the controller. Another person approves them, which is why approving your own prepared item is a red line.
Does a payment run count as one entry or many?
Log it as one entry, but the controller must review each changed supplier and any new payee. The note column records what was checked.
Who answers for an agent's wrong journal?
The approver for anything they approved, and the business for the deployment. See are financial controllers accountable for an AI agent's mistakes and do financial controllers need a certificate to approve AI agent actions.