{
  "question_id": "CG-P1B-FULL-085",
  "slug": "how-a-bank-reconciliation-is-audited-or-reviewed",
  "display_title": "How is a bank reconciliation audited or reviewed?",
  "format": "article-v2",
  "applies_to": {
    "countries": [
      "US"
    ],
    "frameworks": [],
    "tax_year": null,
    "platforms": []
  },
  "general_concept": true,
  "summary": "Checking someone else's bank reconciliation tests whether it supports the cash balance in the books, not only whether it adds up. Get the bank statement and ledger balance yourself, agree both ends and re-add, clear each reconciling item against evidence and the next statement, look for persistent, recurring or round-sum items and signs of forcing, confirm corrections were posted, cover every account, then sign, date and record a conclusion that closes or escalates every exception.",
  "body": "## What does checking a reconciliation prove that preparing it did not?\n\nThe Washington State Auditor's guide Best Practices for Bank Reconciliations, written for local governments, describes a reconciliation as comparing ending cash balances per the bank records with the general ledger. Preparing one shows the preparer could explain the gap between two figures from records they chose. Checking asks what preparing cannot: are both figures genuine, is each reconciling item real and clearing, does everything on the statement belong in the books, were identified corrections posted, and did someone independent do the work on time?\n\nThe same guide warns that it is not enough to merely reconcile numbers; the activity must be read and understood. A reconciliation can agree to the cent while the statement shows a payment nobody authorized, because that payment was recorded in the books too. Preparing a reconciliation, or finding why one will not balance, stays with the preparer.\n\n## Which evidence must you obtain yourself?\n\nObtain these four items yourself, never through the preparer:\n\n- **The period-end bank statement.** Get it by a route the preparer cannot touch, using your bank's own process, for example online read-only access, which the Washington guide suggests so overseers can check an account independently. Ask your bank what it offers.\n- **The next period's statement.** Obtained the same way, it shows whether the reconciling items cleared.\n- **The ledger balance.** Run the cash account report for the statement date yourself.\n- **Last period's reviewed reconciliation.** Take it from your own file.\n\nThe PCAOB's audit-evidence standard, AS 1105, written for auditors, gives general rules for weighing evidence that apply here too: in general, evidence obtained directly is more reliable than evidence obtained indirectly. It also ranks evidence from a knowledgeable source independent of the company above evidence from internal sources only. A statement that reached you through the preparer is indirect evidence controlled by the person being checked; if it was altered, every later step will agree with it.\n\nThe Washington guide tells the reviewer to read the bank statement they obtained directly from the bank and compare it with the one used in the reconciliation; any difference is an exception in itself.\n\n## What does a reviewer's procedure list look like?\n\nEach check names its evidence, who obtains it, the expected result and the exception it raises:\n\n| Check | Evidence | Who obtains it | Expected result | Exception |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Statement is genuine | Period-end statement | Reviewer, from the bank | Identical to the copy used | Any difference: escalate |\n| Bank end | Same statement | Reviewer | Ending balance agrees | Return to preparer |\n| Book end | Cash account report at the statement date | Reviewer, from the books | Ledger at the statement date equals the reconciliation's book balance adjusted only for the listed book-side corrections, and so equals the adjusted bank balance (in the example below, 16,845.00 - 35.00 = 16,810.00) | Any other figure: a correction missing, duplicated or posted to the wrong period, or an entry changed or backdated after the reconciliation |\n| Opening position | Last reviewed reconciliation | Reviewer, own file | Agrees to last reviewed closing | Find what changed after sign-off |\n| Arithmetic | The reconciliation | Reviewer re-adds it | Zero difference, no balancing figure | Unexplained difference or plug |\n| Reconciling items | Source records and next statement | Reviewer | Supported and cleared as expected | Unsupported or uncleared item |\n| Corrections posted | Ledger | Reviewer | Every book-side item posted in the period | Correct and re-present |\n| Statement activity | Statement lines, ledger and approvals | Reviewer | Every payee and transfer recognized | Unfamiliar payee or account: escalate |\n| Coverage | Account list from the banks and the ledger | Reviewer, from the banks | A reviewed reconciliation for each account | Known account without a reviewed reconciliation: have it reconciled, then review it. Account the bank reports that is not in the ledger or not known to the owner: escalate. |\n| Software exceptions | Auto-added, excluded, adjusted and changed items | Reviewer, own login | Each explained | Correct or escalate |\n| Timeliness and sign-off | Dates and signatures | Reviewer | Within policy, and early enough that anything found can still be reported within your banking agreement's window; with no policy, set timeframes for completion and review, as the Washington guide advises | Record in the conclusion |\n\nThe PCAOB's AS 1105 defines reperformance as the independent execution of procedures or controls originally performed by company personnel, and recalculation as checking the mathematical accuracy of information; both go beyond reading. The Washington guide suggests a policy may require the reviewer to verify reconciling items, periodically reperform the reconciliation, or both.\n\nBook-side items are corrections the books still need: in the Washington guide's example, bank fees and interest found on the statement are posted back to the period they relate to. Suppose the adjusted bank balance is 16,810.00 (statement 18,420.00, plus deposits in transit 2,150.00, less outstanding checks 3,760.00) and the adjusted book balance is the ledger's 16,845.00 less an unrecorded 35.00 fee, also 16,810.00. Run the cash account report at the statement date: it should read exactly 16,810.00. At 16,845.00 the fee was not posted to the period; at 16,775.00 it was posted twice, for example by hand and again from the bank feed.\n\n## What clears each class of reconciling item?\n\nThe Washington guide says all reconciling items should have support and most should clear on the next month's statement, that any item other than bank fees or interest should be carefully evaluated and supported, and that deposits in transit should appear as actual deposits within a few days, anything longer indicating a potential theft. The guide does not list clearing evidence by class; applying its rule, each class clears as follows:\n\n| Reconciling item | Evidence that clears it | What the next period should show |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deposit in transit | Deposit record dated by period end, matching recorded receipts | The same amount deposited within days |\n| Outstanding check or payment | Register or payment record dated by period end, and the approved bill it pays | The same amount clearing to the same payee |\n| Bank fee or interest not yet recorded | The statement line | Posted in the period and not listed again |\n| Error in the books | Source document showing the correct amount | Correcting entry posted and not listed again |\n| Bank error | The bank's written acknowledgment | The bank's correction on the statement |\n| Any other item | Written support from outside the preparer's own schedules | Resolved, never carried forward unexplained |\n\nWhen checks clear, look at the images too: the Washington guide says to watch for forged, missing or improper check endorsements.\n\n## Which patterns across periods need a closer look?\n\nKeep a running log with one row per reconciling item: the period it first appeared, its class and amount, and the period it cleared. An item that never clears then shows as a trend, not a fresh observation each month; the Washington guide suggests a policy set a timeframe for resolving outstanding reconciling items. Three patterns each call for a named check:\n\n- **Persistent.** An item carried forward unchanged, such as a deposit in transit listed at three month-ends. A genuine one would have cleared within days, so trace it to the original receipts and establish where the money went; for an outstanding check older than your policy allows, find out why it has not cleared.\n\n  Do not simply void or write back a check nobody has cashed. The Washington guide notes that, for its local governments, a stale-dated check qualifies as unclaimed property requiring special handling and reporting. Find out whether unclaimed-property rules apply to the business before anyone clears it.\n- **Recurring.** A similar unexplained item or small adjustment that returns period after period. Total it across the log and treat it as one pattern, not several trivial differences.\n- **Round sums.** The AICPA's Journal of Accountancy article \"Round numbers: A fingerprint of fraud\" calls an oddly high percentage of round-number entries a red flag, while noting that round numbers are also used in authentic transactions. Vouch round-sum items and adjustments to their support.\n\nPersistence is the signal whatever the amount. None of these patterns says anything about a person; each is a reason to get evidence.\n\n## What suggests a reconciliation was forced?\n\nA forced reconciliation is made to agree by inserting a figure, an adjustment or a fictitious item, so every check based on agreement passes it. Each signal calls for its own check:\n\n| Signal | Check that surfaces it | Basis |\n|---|---|---|\n| The statement in the reconciliation differs from the one you obtained | Compare balances and every line | Washington guide: compare the statement from the bank with the one used |\n| A balancing adjustment, \"other\" item or unexplained difference makes it agree | Demand support for each; in software, search for reconciliation adjustments | Intuit's page on reconciliation adjusting entries: forces the account to balance; a last resort |\n| The opening balance differs from last period's reviewed closing balance | Find which reconciled items were changed afterward | Intuit's page on beginning balance issues: changed reconciled transactions |\n| Reconciling items have no source record | Vouch each to deposit, check and payment records | Washington guide: all reconciling items should have support |\n| Items do not clear as expected, or clear at a different amount or to a different payee | Trace each to the next statement and the check images | Washington guide: deposits in transit within a few days; endorsement warnings |\n| Statement payees or transfers are missing from the books or unfamiliar | Read every statement line against the ledger and approvals | Washington guide: read the statement; scan for transfers to unfamiliar accounts |\n| Working papers are too thin to follow, or the reconciliation was finished long after the period | Ask for full working papers | Washington guide: document it so someone else can follow it |\n\nThe definition and the pairing of signals with checks are a working list, not a recognized fraud-examination list. Each signal can have an innocent explanation, such as a keying error or a bank delay; the check decides which.\n\n## Which accounts must the review cover?\n\nEvery account holding the business's cash is in scope, including payroll, savings, merchant and sweep accounts and dormant or rarely used ones. The Washington guide treats any account holding cash or investments as a bank account and advises searching for open accounts unknown to you by inquiring with your bank and possibly others about accounts under your name or federal identification number. Demonstrate coverage rather than assume it: build the account list from what the banks report and from the chart of accounts, and show a reviewed reconciliation for each account and period. For a dormant account, agree the unchanged balance to that period's statement; activity on an account everyone believes is idle is an exception.\n\n## Who reviews, how soon, and what shows the review happened?\n\nThe Washington guide calls for independent review of bank reconciliations, so the reviewer is never the preparer.\n\nEvidence that the review happened is the reviewer's name, signature or electronic sign-off and date on the reconciliation, with notes of what was checked; an unsigned, undated review cannot be relied on later. The Washington guide suggests a policy covering whether the preparer signs and dates the reconciliation upon completion, how the reviewer obtains the statement and documents approval, the number of days allotted for completing the reconciliation after the statement arrives, and when the reviewer should complete the review; it also expects the reviewer to ensure the reconciler completed it on time. Compare both dates with the statement date and those deadlines, and record any lateness in the conclusion.\n\n## What changes when one person records, pays and reconciles?\n\nThe review is then the only independent check over cash, so steps that would otherwise be discretionary become mandatory, each performed by someone other than that person: obtaining both statements directly from the bank, reading every line, re-performing the whole reconciliation every period, vouching every reconciling item and adjustment, and checking cleared-check images and electronic payees against approved bills. The Washington guide says that if duties are fully segregated the reviewer may spot-check key items, and that where you cannot fully segregate duties you might outsource the reconciliation to someone else, such as a contracted accountant. If the owner is the only person keeping the books, nobody independent is checking; an outside accountant is the practical way to add one. Wider safeguards for this setting belong to the related question on one person recording, paying and reconciling.\n\n## What extra checks does a reconciliation matched from a bank feed need?\n\nSoftware does the arithmetic, so attention moves to what the matching accepted, left out or overrode. The Washington guide advises periodically verifying that an automated reconciliation works as expected and that the application restricts user access and maintains an audit trail. In QuickBooks Online, Intuit's help pages point to four places to look:\n\n- **Auto-added transactions.** Intuit's page on setting up bank rules (updated 9/11/2026) says that with auto-add on, QuickBooks applies the rule to any downloaded transaction it applies to and posts it immediately, marking such transactions with an AUTO badge. Test AUTO-badged items against the statement and their support.\n- **Excluded transactions.** Intuit's page on excluding a downloaded bank transaction (updated 8/10/2026) says excluded items move to the Excluded tab and do not appear in any account register or financial report. Each exclusion in the period needs a reason you can verify, such as a genuine duplicate.\n- **Reconciliation adjustments.** Intuit's page on adjusting entries for a reconciliation (updated 8/5/2026) says one creates an expense transaction if the difference is negative, or an income transaction if it is positive, and calls such entries a last resort. Treat each as a forced balance until explained.\n- **Changes after reconciliation.** Intuit's page on fixing beginning balance issues (updated 9/1/2026) names a reconciled transaction that was edited, deleted, voided, moved or unreconciled as a cause, and says its Reconcile Discrepancy Report lists what changed, when, and who changed it. Run it whenever the opening balance differs from last period's reviewed closing balance.\n\nIntuit's page on fixing beginning balance issues says you need admin access to view and edit reconciliations; use your own admin-level login rather than asking the preparer to run these reports. Other products label these screens differently; use that vendor's own current help.\n\n## How does a manager's review differ from an auditor's work over cash?\n\nDepth and what you may conclude depend on your capacity:\n\n| Your capacity | Depth and conclusion |\n|---|---|\n| Owner or manager checking the bookkeeper's work | Where duties are fully segregated, spot checks of key items, as the Washington guide allows, always with the statement you obtained directly from the bank read and compared; where they are not, the full procedure list. Conclude whether the reconciliation supports the book balance, listing exceptions. |\n| Outside accountant checking as part of periodic work | The same procedures, with evidence taken directly from the bank rather than through client staff; the conclusion goes to the owner and is not an audit opinion |\n| Practitioner performing procedures over cash within an audit | Auditing standards set the evidence and depth, and the result feeds an opinion on the financial statements as a whole |\n\nA manager's review is part of the business's own internal control. The Journal of Accountancy's 2024 refresher on fraud and the responsibility for its detection states that the primary responsibility for fraud prevention and detection lies with the entity's management, including its system of internal control. The review is a control, not assurance: it tells the owner whether this reconciliation is supported by the evidence checked, and nobody inside or outside the business should treat it as assurance.\n\nAn audit differs in independence and evidence. In an audit under the PCAOB's standards, its confirmation standard, AS 2310, requires the auditor, for cash held by third parties, to perform confirmation procedures or otherwise obtain relevant and reliable audit evidence by directly accessing information maintained by a knowledgeable external source, and to send each confirmation request directly to the confirming party and obtain the response directly from it. That is the PCAOB's requirement, so an auditor working under it does not take the cash balance from your reviewed reconciliation; if your audit follows the AICPA's auditing standards instead, ask your auditor how cash will be confirmed. The 2024 refresher describes the auditor's aim as reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, with an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements may not be detected.\n\n## How do you record the conclusion and handle an item nobody can explain?\n\nRecord the conclusion on the reconciliation or an attached review note: accounts and periods covered, the evidence you obtained and its source, checks performed, each exception, and one conclusion, either supported, supported once listed corrections are posted and re-presented, or not supported. Sign and date it. The Washington guide suggests your policy state whether you will allow any variance to remain unresolved. Each exception then reaches one of three ends:\n\n| When the item | Do this |\n|---|---|\n| Is genuine but lacked support | Obtain the evidence yourself, from the bank or the underlying documents, attach it and clear the item |\n| Shows an error in the books or the reconciliation | Have the preparer correct the books and re-present the reconciliation, then review it again and confirm the entries posted |\n| Cannot be explained with evidence, or points to an altered statement, unrecognized payee or unknown account | Escalate it as a possible irregularity, as below |\n\nThe Journal of Accountancy's article \"Fraud is suspected: Now what?\", written for auditors, advises choosing whom to contact depending on who is suspected, never drawing conclusions of guilt or innocence, notifying only those who need to know, and advising the client to seek legal counsel about what steps to take. Applied to you, escalate to someone not involved in the item: normally the owner. If the owner or whoever oversees the finances prepared, approved or benefits from the item, go to another owner or those charged with governance instead. Record facts, not conclusions about any person; tell only those who need to know; an owner takes legal advice on next steps, and an outside accountant advises the owner to. Keep your own copies of what you obtained.\n\nThe Washington guide tells you to check your banking agreement for how quickly you must report fraud or errors, and warns that for ACH and wire transfers you have little to no window for reporting fraud, so contact the bank without waiting for the next review; handling a suspected unauthorized payment, including one made to changed bank details, is a separate question.\n\nCarry every open exception into the log with an owner and a due date; the next review starts by confirming each reached its end.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "REF::1",
      "url": "https://sao.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/2026%20Best%20Practices%20for%20Bank%20Reconciliations.pdf",
      "title": "Best Practices for Bank Reconciliations",
      "publisher": "Office of the Washington State Auditor, Center for Government Innovation",
      "published": "March 2026",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:29:44+00:00",
      "sha256": "7c46773a2e176274ead470534728aff0340046c8c07af8c541bb437826e2a1ee",
      "supports": [
        "C1",
        "C2",
        "C7",
        "C6",
        "C60",
        "C10",
        "C11",
        "C12",
        "C13",
        "C14",
        "C15",
        "C16",
        "C58",
        "C24",
        "C19",
        "C20",
        "C21",
        "C25",
        "C28",
        "C29",
        "C30",
        "C31",
        "C32",
        "C33",
        "C34",
        "C35",
        "C36",
        "C52",
        "C56",
        "C57"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::2",
      "url": "https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS1105",
      "title": "AS 1105: Audit Evidence",
      "publisher": "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)",
      "published": "Adopting Release PCAOB Release No. 2010-004, current amended text (page undated)",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:29:45+00:00",
      "sha256": "b06bb33f3e85cd9f327c8ee21472ddfae465f636caa75b0a89c86c0ecea70e03",
      "supports": [
        "C3",
        "C5",
        "C8",
        "C9"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::3",
      "url": "https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2018/may/fraud-round-numbers/",
      "title": "Round numbers: A fingerprint of fraud",
      "publisher": "Journal of Accountancy (AICPA)",
      "published": "May 1, 2018",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:29:46+00:00",
      "sha256": "3246388c94b691b6df2b7e108c918457cf7dec62d64b0da251c2d9e553d5c0ab",
      "supports": [
        "C17",
        "C18"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::4",
      "url": "https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-article/banking/set-bank-rules-categorize-online-banking-online/L0mjJl0nD_US_en_US",
      "title": "Set up bank rules to categorize online banking transactions in QuickBooks Online",
      "publisher": "Intuit Inc.",
      "published": "Updated 9/11/2026",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:31:47+00:00",
      "sha256": "ac33b2aeb8a4f4e898c1c2ad89bce5ee106d61fb966c1fe768311d51df4b679a",
      "supports": [
        "C37",
        "C38"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::5",
      "url": "https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-article/bank-transactions/exclude-bank-transaction-downloaded-quickbooks/L8icSVVJ6_US_en_US",
      "title": "Exclude a bank transaction you downloaded into QuickBooks Online",
      "publisher": "Intuit Inc.",
      "published": "Updated 8/10/2026",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:34:10+00:00",
      "sha256": "b53dacfa5d7783826899cf9dfd65b6e7a181c08908ff50aecf1c0c58c28a53ca",
      "supports": [
        "C39",
        "C40"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::6",
      "url": "https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-article/statement-reconciliation/enter-adjusting-entry-reconciliation-quickbooks/L2m1jHhBS_US_en_US",
      "title": "Enter an adjusting entry for a reconciliation in QuickBooks Online",
      "publisher": "Intuit Inc.",
      "published": "Updated 8/5/2026",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:36:16+00:00",
      "sha256": "b713e355d66264fea7ae2e20e32ee0ead695625b30a5820078da3c71ea45d818",
      "supports": [
        "C59",
        "C41",
        "C42"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::7",
      "url": "https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-article/statement-reconciliation/fix-issues-accounts-reconciled-past-quickbooks/L8lx6PQQ5_US_en_US",
      "title": "Fix beginning balance issues when reconciling in QuickBooks Online",
      "publisher": "Intuit Inc.",
      "published": "Updated 9/1/2026",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:38:39+00:00",
      "sha256": "95e5d2fa6eccbb68d890c3c1c87400fe0a3e91799c1f1b3f577f150512efd401",
      "supports": [
        "C43",
        "C44",
        "C45",
        "C61"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::8",
      "url": "https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2024/feb/a-refresher-on-fraud-and-the-responsibility-for-its-detection/",
      "title": "A refresher on fraud and the responsibility for its detection",
      "publisher": "Journal of Accountancy (AICPA)",
      "published": "February 1, 2024",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:39:01+00:00",
      "sha256": "c1eaa7b1ca054b588cbd420af87fa72cace92fc11ce687193ba17d92f42a19cb",
      "supports": [
        "C46",
        "C62",
        "C50",
        "C51"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::9",
      "url": "https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2310",
      "title": "AS 2310: The Auditor's Use of Confirmation",
      "publisher": "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)",
      "published": "Adopting Release PCAOB Release No. 2023-008",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:39:01+00:00",
      "sha256": "fd676011d08628b79c4b0fed1b802ef7f45f64996db90c3a0921c219922d14a7",
      "supports": [
        "C47",
        "C48",
        "C49"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "REF::10",
      "url": "https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2022/aug/fraud-suspected-dos-donts-auditors/",
      "title": "Fraud is suspected: Now what?",
      "publisher": "Journal of Accountancy (AICPA)",
      "published": "August 1, 2022",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-26T21:39:02+00:00",
      "sha256": "cd6e0117089347930c95ee9e9df87e75845d9366b6d9406e7a3d7ab08a68ba54",
      "supports": [
        "C63",
        "C53",
        "C54",
        "C55"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "related": [
    {
      "question_id": "CG-P1B-002",
      "slug": "what-is-a-bank-reconciliation-and-how-to-tie-the-books-to-the-bank",
      "display_title": "What is a bank reconciliation, who prepares it, and how do I tie the books to the bank (with a worked example)?"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "CG-P1B-FULL-002",
      "slug": "why-a-bank-reconciliation-does-not-balance-and-how-to-find-the-difference",
      "display_title": "Why doesn't my bank reconciliation balance or match the general ledger, and how do I find and fix the difference?"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "CG-P1B-FULL-088",
      "slug": "what-a-bookkeeping-audit-or-review-checklist-should-contain",
      "display_title": "What should a checklist for auditing or reviewing a business's bookkeeping contain?"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "CG-MCE-023",
      "slug": "what-checks-can-a-very-small-business-put-in-place-when-the-same-person-records",
      "display_title": "What checks can a very small business put in place when the same person records, pays and reconciles?"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "CG-MCE-130",
      "slug": "which-accounts-need-to-be-reconciled-and-how-often",
      "display_title": "Which of my accounts actually need to be reconciled, and how often?"
    },
    {
      "question_id": "CG-P1B-FULL-008",
      "slug": "how-to-reconcile-balance-sheet-and-general-ledger-accounts",
      "display_title": "How do I reconcile balance-sheet and general-ledger accounts (account reconciliations beyond the bank account) as part of the accounting close?"
    }
  ],
  "review_class": "consequential",
  "review_class_trigger": "claim_level_review_required",
  "provenance": {
    "author_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
    "reviewer_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
    "review_verdict": "ACCEPT",
    "review_source": "closure",
    "review_verdict_on_sha256": "024d0f53245485aa429b8420b7262d2bd27e988d61d5e3bdcad4fa1036415f6f",
    "editorial_disposition": "ACCEPT",
    "corrections": 1,
    "approved_by": null,
    "approved_at": null,
    "article_sha256": "024d0f53245485aa429b8420b7262d2bd27e988d61d5e3bdcad4fa1036415f6f",
    "source_map_sha256": "c06f0413d25b989a809441eede4f7ac2e3f67f607add31affd691516ffa8942b",
    "transform_sha256": "8014729f269924407f8a2b8c2fcc33cf552b284c1f7a0e4fb96e9acabb665df6"
  },
  "offer": "ask",
  "offer_id": null,
  "sample_target_id": null,
  "datePublished": "2026-09-27T05:08:58Z",
  "reviewed_at": "2026-09-27T05:08:58Z",
  "content_sha": "e57e585056c8b6e0ed360e1a1607b3767aa2fe2e50951ed89c405e54376d1478",
  "release": "2.10.0",
  "slug_provenance": "minted at first publication",
  "question_text": "How is a bank reconciliation audited or reviewed?",
  "jsonld_types": [
    "Article"
  ],
  "related_question_ids": [
    "CG-P1B-002",
    "CG-P1B-FULL-002",
    "CG-P1B-FULL-088",
    "CG-MCE-023",
    "CG-MCE-130",
    "CG-P1B-FULL-008"
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "alias_provenance": []
}