Two kinds of item on one list.
The checklists that rank today are long task lists. Trullion’s has 18 steps and ECOSIRE’s has 23. Both are sensible, and ECOSIRE rightly makes intercompany its own step. Neither has a step for exchange rates, and neither says what happens to an item that was signed off on Tuesday when the books change on Wednesday. With several entities, those two gaps are where a close goes wrong.
The fix is to notice that some items are questions the ledger can answer. These should be evaluated, with the figures kept as evidence, and evaluated again before you close.
| Check | The question it answers | Run for |
|---|---|---|
| FX rates for the period | Is there a rate for every currency posted this month, with a period-end rate approved by a second person? | Each entity |
| Control accounts tie | Do receivables, payables and inventory in the general ledger equal their subledgers exactly? | Each entity |
| Intercompany settled | Are intercompany transactions posted, and are both sides of each balance matched? | Each entity with intercompany activity |
| Open alerts reviewed | Has someone decided every unusual entry flagged for the period? | Each entity |
| Source data fresh and tied | For an entity still kept in another ledger, is its data current and does it agree with the group copy? | Entities on another system |
The rest need a person. Keep them on the same list, each with a preparer and a reviewer who is not the preparer.
| Item | What the owner decides |
|---|---|
| Accruals for costs not yet invoiced | Estimate, support, and set the reversal date |
| Revenue and expense cutoff | Judge what belongs in the month |
| Flux commentary | Explain movements against expectation |
| Eliminations and consolidation entries | Group level, after every entity is complete |
| Reporting pack review | Controller or CFO, last |
Auditors look at this process directly. Under PCAOB AS 2201, paragraph .26 requires the auditor to evaluate the period-end financial reporting process, and paragraph .27 names the locations involved and the types of adjusting and consolidating entries among the things to assess. A list that records what each check found, and when, is easier to walk through than a column of ticks.
One subsidiary on day three.
Take an example group with a US parent and subsidiaries in the UK and India, closing October 2026. Here are the UK company’s ledger checks on the third working day.
| Check | Verdict | What it found |
|---|---|---|
| FX rates for the period | Failed | Bills in EUR and USD were posted in October. USD had an approved period-end rate. EUR had no October rate at all. |
| Control accounts tie | Passed | Receivables 412,380.00, payables 188,915.40 and inventory 74,650.00 each equal their subledgers exactly. |
| Intercompany settled | Warning | 2 of 14 intercompany reconciliation items are open breaks. |
| Open alerts reviewed | Warning | 3 alerts not yet decided, none high severity. |
| Source tie-out and freshness | Not applicable | The UK books are kept in Rivane, so there is no other system to tie to. |
The failure is the useful one. EUR bills were posted all month, but nobody had entered an October EUR rate, so every EUR balance would have been carried at a stale rate into the group numbers. Someone entered it that morning; the check then showed a warning until a second person approved the rate, and passed after that.
The two warnings are judgement calls with the facts attached. One intercompany break was a payment to the parent still in transit, which the reviewer accepted with a note. The three alerts were decided by the end of the day. A warning that has been reviewed can stay a warning.
A sign-off expires when the answer changes.
On day three the control account tie passed, and two people signed it off. On day four, a 6,240.00 customer credit went in as a manual journal straight to the receivables control account, with no credit note in the subledger. Nothing on a ticked list would show it.
The control account tie, day three to day five
UK company, October 2026. Every amount is an example.
Day 3, Wed 4 Nov
Control accounts tie Passed
Receivables, ledger 412,380.00
Receivables, subledger 412,380.00
Prepared by A, reviewed by B
Day 4, Thu 5 Nov
A customer credit is posted as a manual
journal straight to the control account
Dr Revenue 6,240.00
Cr Receivables control 6,240.00
No credit note in the receivables subledger
Day 5, Fri 6 Nov, checks rerun before close
Receivables, ledger 406,140.00
Receivables, subledger 412,380.00
Difference 6,240.00
Control accounts tie Failed
Sign-offs by A and B cleared, item open
Fix
Reverse the manual journal, issue the credit
note in the subledger: both now 406,140.00
Rerun: Passed. A and B sign off again.Rerunning the checks before close caught it: the ledger fell to 406,140.00 while the subledger stayed at 412,380.00. Because the verdict changed, the earlier sign-offs no longer described the books, so they were cleared and the item reopened. Reversing the journal and issuing the credit note in the subledger brought both back to 406,140.00.
The rule is simple to adopt in any system: a sign-off covers the answer it saw. If the answer changes, the item is open again. If it does not change, the sign-off stands, so rerunning the checks costs nothing on a clean day.
How Rivane builds the checklist today.
Rivane generates the ledger checks for each entity and period from the state of its books, next to any items your team adds by hand. Each row shows its verdict, a one line summary of what it found, and a link to the screen that holds the detail.
Rivane close checklist, as built
# Rivane close checklist, as built.
checks source tie-out, source data freshness,
FX rates, control accounts, intercompany,
open anomaly alerts, closing entries
drafted by Rivane AI: one row each,
per entity and period
verdicts passed, warning, failed, not applicable,
not evaluated; a check that cannot run
says so and is never shown as passed
evidence each row keeps a one line summary, the
figures it was judged on, the time it
ran, and a link to the screen behind it
rerun a person reruns the checks from the
checklist; opening the page only reads
reopen if a rerun changes a row's verdict, its
preparer and reviewer sign-offs are
cleared and the row goes back to open
sign-off the reviewer cannot be the preparer
close closing the period is refused while any
checklist item is not complete
The limits worth knowing. The checks rerun when someone asks for it from the checklist, not continuously, so make the rerun the last step before you close. A failed or warning verdict does not block a sign-off on its own: the reviewer decides, and the verdict and its evidence stay on the record. The generated list covers the ledger checks above; accruals, cutoff and flux commentary are items your team adds and owns.
The short version.
Run one list per entity. Let the ledger answer rates, ties, intercompany and alerts, and rerun those checks right before close. Give every judgement item a preparer and a different reviewer. Reopen anything whose answer changed after sign-off, and consolidate only when every entity is complete.
To see the checklist, reconciliations and period locks together, read the Rivane close management overview.
Frequently asked questions.
What should a multi-entity close checklist have that a single-entity one does not?
Three things. A rate check for every currency each entity posted in the month, with the period-end rate approved by a second person. An intercompany check per entity, so both sides of every balance are matched before consolidation. And a gate at group level: eliminations and consolidation start only when every entity has finished its own list.
Should a reviewed checklist item stay signed off if the books change afterwards?
Not if the change alters the answer. A sign-off covers the books as they were when it was given. If a later entry makes a tie fail or a rate go missing, the item should go back to open and be reviewed again. Rerun the checks that can be evaluated from the ledger immediately before you close the period.
Which close tasks can be checked automatically?
Anything with a yes or no answer in the ledger: whether every posted currency has a rate, whether control accounts equal their subledgers, whether intercompany items are matched, whether flagged entries have been decided, and whether data from another system is current and agrees. Estimates, cutoff decisions, flux explanations and consolidation entries need a person.
Sources
- PCAOB AS 2201, paragraphs .26 and .27. The auditor must evaluate the period-end financial reporting process, including the locations involved and the types of adjusting and consolidating entries.
- Trullion, Month End Close Checklist: Fast and Audit Ready, 9 April 2026. Read as a current answer: 18 steps in three phases, with no intercompany or exchange rate step and nothing on items that change after sign-off.
- ECOSIRE, The Month-End Close Checklist: 23 Steps, 6 June 2026. Read as a current answer: covers intercompany and says which steps to automate, with no exchange rate step and no rule for a signed-off item that changes.
A note on how this was researched. AS 2201 paragraphs .26 and .27 were read on the PCAOB site. The two checklists were read in full as current answers. The group, its entities and every amount are examples. The Rivane section describes the product as built today, checked against the close checklist code rather than marketing copy. This is not accounting or audit advice for your specific case.
On embedded social posts: we looked for public posts from regulators or practitioners on multi-entity close checklists and found none we could verify as current and relevant, so this article uses ordinary citations instead.