Prepare consistent data
Extract agreed records and standardise the fields needed for matching.
Accounting Controls & Reconciliation
Accounting Reconciliation Automation
Bring transaction records into a consistent reconciliation workflow, with rules that reflect your accounts, tolerances and review responsibilities. Xalta connects source extraction, data preparation and multi-stage matching so finance teams can resolve differences with the supporting evidence in view. Keep the match decision, unresolved balance and final review connected to the source records.
Apply the matching rules
Use approved keys, tolerances and split-matching logic in a defined sequence.
Resolve the differences
Give analysts unmatched items, source context and accountable next actions.
Report with traceability
Retain match outcomes, review history and the information behind the totals.
Operational challenges
Challenges
Accounting teams reconcile records created by different applications, teams and reporting periods. When formats and matching practices vary, staff spend more time preparing spreadsheets and investigating repeated differences than explaining the exceptions that matter.
Records arrive in different shapes
Source exports differ in field names, date conventions, reference quality and aggregation. Teams repeatedly clean and combine files before they can establish whether the records describe the same business event.
Operational impact: preparation effort grows with each source and cycle.
Matching depends on local knowledge
Different offices or teams may use different keys, tolerances and manual workarounds. A match accepted in one location can require a different investigation elsewhere, making the process difficult to standardise.
Operational impact: inconsistent decisions and reliance on experienced staff.
Unmatched work lacks context
An unresolved difference may involve missing records, timing, split transactions or inconsistent references. Without the original evidence and rule outcome, analysts repeat searches before they can decide the next action.
Operational impact: slower exception resolution and repeated checking.
Reporting follows the backlog
Spreadsheet preparation and manual reconciliation delay the point at which finance can trust the operational position. Historical decisions become harder to explain when source versions and review notes are maintained separately.
Operational impact: delayed reporting and fragmented review evidence.
Accounting Controls & Reconciliation
How It Works
Separate data preparation, automated matching and analyst decisions. Each run should identify its source population, rule version, accepted matches and outstanding work so the team can explain the result.
Extract & validate
Receive the agreed ERP or source-system records. Check the reporting population, required fields and available control totals, then retain a source reference and run identity for the records entering reconciliation.
Standardise & enrich
Normalise references, dates, amounts and other matching fields. Apply approved filtering and enrichment rules, keeping rejected or incomplete records visible rather than silently excluding them from the reconciliation.
Match & investigate
Run the agreed matching stages in sequence, using business keys, tolerances and approved split or forced-match logic. Route unresolved items to analysts with the candidate records and rule outcome; retain authorised overrides separately.
Review & report
Reconcile the matched and unmatched population with the agreed controls. Capture analyst decisions, generate the required reports and retain the run history, outstanding items and review evidence for the operating team.
Solution capabilities
Solutions
The solution combines repeatable data preparation with a configurable matching process. Define the records, matching hierarchy and acceptance controls around the actual accounting workflow instead of relying on a single generic match rule.
ERP integration and controlled intake
Source extraction and run controls
Collect agreed ERP and application records and identify the run, reporting period and source version. Define checks for required data, completeness and control totals so missing or duplicate inputs are addressed before matching.
Operational example
Identify a missing source extract before reporting a completed reconciliation.
Client-defined preparation logic
Transformation and enrichment
Standardise the fields needed to compare records, applying approved filters and enrichment. Retain the reason for excluded or invalid items and preserve the original reference for review.
Operational example
Normalise equivalent references without losing their source values.
Configurable business-rule matching
Multi-stage matching engine
Apply approved matching stages with business keys, amount tolerances and the split or forced-match logic appropriate to the workflow. Define rule order and record the basis for each accepted match.
Operational example
Separate a rule-based exact match from a reviewed split match.
Review queue and accountable decisions
Analyst exceptions and overrides
Present unresolved differences with the relevant source records, candidate matches and failed checks. Assign ownership, record reviewer decisions and make manual overrides identifiable in the reconciliation history.
Operational example
Track why an analyst accepted or rejected a candidate match.
Operational reporting and evidence
Reporting and audit history
Produce agreed summaries, outstanding-item reports and retained historical records. Connect reported totals to the source population, applied rules and review outcomes so finance can explain what remains unresolved.
Operational example
Trace an outstanding balance to its source records and latest owner.
Regression evaluation and controlled change
Evaluation and maintainability
Test data preparation, match stages, tolerances and exceptions against representative cycles. Evaluate rule or source changes before release and compare processing time, analyst effort and accepted-match quality against the agreed baseline.
Operational example
Re-run a known exception set after changing a tolerance rule.
Platforms, tech stack and architecture
Integrations & Architecture
The documented implementation is a custom-built reconciliation solution with ERP extraction, a transformation layer, a multi-stage matching engine, dashboards and retained logs. The source does not identify its programming language, database or ERP vendor. Those deployment choices are confirmed during design; Xalta’s wider integration practice includes RPA, APIs and enterprise reporting.
Platforms and technical architecture
The layers below identify the technology, its role and the configuration decisions for the agreed deployment.
| Workstream | Platform / technology | Architectural role | Client configuration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source connections | Client ERP and agreed transaction interfaces; API, file or authorised automation selected for each source. | Extract the reconciled population and retain source references. | Interfaces, reporting periods, access and completeness checks. |
| Preparation layer | Custom validation, filtering, enrichment and transformation components documented in the case. | Create comparable records while retaining invalid and excluded items for review. | Field definitions, normalisation, source versions and control totals. |
| Matching engine | Custom business-rule matching with tolerances, forced and split matching. | Evaluate the approved match hierarchy and record the rule outcome. | Keys, rule order, amounts, tolerances and override authority. |
| Review and reporting | Analyst exception workflow, configurable dashboards, reports and notifications. | Resolve differences and publish accountable operational results. | Review owners, report definitions, escalation and sign-off. |
| Runtime and data store | Client-approved hosting and persistence selected during architecture design. | Retain run state, transaction references, rule versions and history. | Language, database, deployment environment and retention are confirmed in scope. |
Representative cycles
Provide source extracts, reconciled examples, known differences and expected totals.
Rules and ownership
Agree matching keys, tolerances, split handling, overrides and review responsibility.
Acceptance and reporting
Define completeness, match quality, outstanding-item reporting and performance measures.
Documented workflow and outcomes
Use Cases
The reported measures below describe the supplied client case and its defined workflow. Use discovery and pilot evaluation to establish the baseline, acceptance criteria and operational scope for your deployment.
Reported client result
90%Reconciliation-time reduction
Reported for the documented beverage-company implementation, where reconciliation moved from days to hours.
Reported client result
75%Resource-requirement reduction
Reported in the case overview, with the cited zonal example moving from four FTEs to one.
Reported client result
98%+Reported data accuracy
Reported for that client’s rule-based reconciliation workflow; the measure is specific to its source population and controls.
Documented client implementation
Beverage company · Zonal accounting operations
High-volume reconciliation standardised across independent zones.
Operating context
A large non-alcoholic beverage company handled nearly one million daily transactions across zonal offices with inconsistent accounting practices and substantial manual reconciliation.
Implementation
Xalta connected ERP extraction with validation, enrichment, filtering and multi-stage business-rule matching. Configurable reporting, notifications and retained historical records supported review and consistent operations.
Reported client outcomes
- The case overview reports a 90% reduction in reconciliation time.
- The cited resource example moved from four FTEs to one per zone.
- The solution standardised matching, reporting and historical evidence across the documented operating scope.
Delivery and operations
Implementation & Support
Start with a defined workstream and an agreed baseline. Configure the selected platform and integrations, validate representative and exception scenarios, then release in controlled stages with named operating owners.
Map sources and controls
Define the reconciled population, accounting periods, source interfaces and current exception process.
- Xalta delivers
- Source map, baseline and acceptance criteria.
- Your team provides
- Representative cycles, control totals and business owners.
Acceptance checkpoint
The agreed evidence, ownership and readiness criteria for this stage are accepted.
Configure preparation and matching
Build transformations, rule hierarchy, tolerances, analyst routing and report definitions.
- Xalta delivers
- Configured integration, matching and review workflow.
- Your team provides
- Rule approval, reference data and review authority.
Acceptance checkpoint
The agreed evidence, ownership and readiness criteria for this stage are accepted.
Validate complete cycles
Compare the result against accepted reconciliations, including split matches, missing data and overrides, before controlled rollout.
- Xalta delivers
- Evaluation evidence, reconciled totals and release plan.
- Your team provides
- Business review and acceptance of the complete result.
Acceptance checkpoint
The agreed evidence, ownership and readiness criteria for this stage are accepted.
Operate and improve
Monitor outstanding work, source changes and recurring differences. Evaluate material rule changes before release.
- Xalta delivers
- Scoped monitoring, incident triage and regression support.
- Your team provides
- Ongoing review ownership and change decisions.
Acceptance checkpoint
The agreed evidence, ownership and readiness criteria for this stage are accepted.
Documented client work
Case Studies
Explore the direct client example and related workflows that use source validation, system integration and accountable operating controls.
Cross-industry · Accounting operations
Financial reconciliation
90% less reconciliation time
Reported for the documented beverage-company workflow
ERP extraction, data transformation and multi-stage business-rule matching standardised reconciliation across zonal operations. The case reports a reduction from days to hours.
Read case study
Financial services · Bank operations
ACH return reporting
Under 15 minutes
Reported cycle time, previously 2-3 hours
Excel and flat-file bank inputs were validated and mapped into a timestamped reporting template. End-of-run notifications made successful entries and exceptions visible.
Read case study
Manufacturing · Distributor operations
Rebate claim validation
60-70% less manual effort
Reported for the initial validation phase
SPR and backend rebate claims were checked against header rules, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics and reference documents before the updated forms passed to the internal AR team.
Read case studyPlanning your deployment
FAQs
Questions about platform choices, operating scope, integration and acceptance.
Which reconciliation workflows can be included?
The initial scope identifies the source records, accounts, reporting period and business rules to reconcile. The documented case concerns high-volume accounting data from an ERP across zonal offices. Other reconciliation patterns require their own source, control and exception assessment.
How do tolerances and split matches work?
Finance defines the match hierarchy, permitted tolerances and cases requiring a split or authorised forced match. The implementation records the applied rule and distinguishes automated acceptance from reviewer decisions. Representative examples are evaluated before the rules enter production.
What happens to records that do not match?
They remain visible as assigned exceptions with source references, candidate records and the rule outcome. Analysts record the resolution or override, and reporting retains the unmatched population rather than treating execution completion as a fully reconciled result.
Can reconciliation create accounting adjustments?
Adjustment preparation or ERP posting can be assessed as a connected scope with explicit approval and accounting controls. The documented reconciliation evidence establishes extraction, preparation, matching and reporting; write-back actions require their own design and acceptance.
Which platform and technology stack are used?
The documented implementation is a custom-built reconciliation solution with ERP extraction, a transformation layer, a multi-stage matching engine, dashboards and retained logs. The source does not identify its programming language, database or ERP vendor. Those deployment choices are confirmed during design; Xalta’s wider integration practice includes RPA, APIs and enterprise reporting.
How should we use the reported client results?
The figures describe the documented client workflow and its operating scope. Discovery establishes your source population, baseline, acceptance definitions and constraints. The pilot measures the agreed outcomes before wider rollout; the case figures are not applied as a universal service commitment.
How are access, evidence and reviewer responsibilities defined?
The design identifies approved system access, authorised actions, decision owners, retained evidence and exception handling. Storage, retention, monitoring and recovery follow the agreed client requirements. Representative failure and partial-completion scenarios are included in acceptance.
What determines implementation and ongoing support?
Scope reflects source systems, input types, rules, volumes, review needs, output interfaces and operating coverage. The engagement defines client responsibilities, acceptance, monitoring, incident ownership and change handling. Additional workflows or system connections are assessed before inclusion.
Discuss your requirements
Contact Us
Bring representative source records, an accepted reconciliation and the differences that take the most analyst time. We will define the matching hierarchy, integration scope, review controls and acceptance measures.