Case Study
Financial Reconciliation & Controls
Ongoing reconciliation of vendor commissions against contracts, vendor statements, and payment records, resulting in $4,809.80 recovered from identified errors.
- Focus
- Financial accuracy
- Context
- 21 vendors, 22 clients, 85 contract records
- Tools
- Commission tracking system (Supabase, Vercel)
- Role
- Operations Intelligence Manager
Overview
I perform ongoing commission reconciliation across 21 vendors, 22 clients, and 85 contract records at a technology advisory firm. Each commission is checked against the contract terms, the vendor's statement, and the payment record.
Risk & objective
Commissions are calculated from contract terms and paid by vendors on their own schedules. Calculation errors, missing or delayed payments, and gaps in supporting documents can go unnoticed without a regular check. The objective is to confirm that what is owed matches what was reported and what was paid, and to follow up on anything that does not.
Approach
- Gather the three sources. For each commission, collect the contract terms, the vendor's statement, and the payment record.
- Work out what is owed. Calculate the expected commission from the contract terms.
- Compare to the vendor statement. Check that the vendor reported the amount that the contract implies.
- Compare to the payment record. Check that the amount paid matches what was reported and is not missing or late.
- Classify each exception. Calculation error, missing payment, delayed payment, or documentation gap.
- Investigate and verify. Trace each exception to its cause and confirm it against supporting documents.
- Follow up with vendors. Raise each item with the vendor and track it until it is resolved. Commission items totaling $68,481.48 have been under follow-up.
- Record the outcome. Note what was found, what was recovered, and what remains open. $4,809.80 has been recovered from identified vendor commission errors.
Controls
| Control | Risk it addresses | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Three-way comparison (contract, statement, payment) | Commissions that are wrong, unreported, or unpaid | Matched or flagged record per commission |
| Supporting-document verification | Adjustments made without proof | Documents tied to each exception |
| Exception follow-up with vendors | Items left open indefinitely | Follow-up record for each open item |
| Approval workflows and activity logs in the internal applications | Unreviewed or untraceable changes to records | Approval history and action logs |
Reconciliation worksheet
| Vendor | Expected (contract) | Reported (statement) | Paid | Variance | Exception type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor A | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | None | Matched |
| Vendor B | 250 | 225 | 225 | 25 | Calculation error | Follow up |
| Vendor C | 180 | 180 | 0 | 180 | Missing payment | Follow up |
| Vendor D | 90 | 90 | 90 | 0 | Delayed payment | Closed |
Result
$4,809.80 recovered from identified vendor commission errors, and an ongoing reconciliation process in which every exception is classified, evidenced, and followed up.
Through an audit lens
This is substantive testing in practice: recalculating from source terms, comparing independent records, and tracing exceptions to evidence. It also covers the two questions an auditor asks of any financial record: is it accurate, and is it complete? I know how to prove each answer with documents and how to keep the audit trail clean.
Skills demonstrated
Details are anonymized to protect confidential business data. Figures are limited to those on my resume.
← Back to all projects