PRAIS Assure

The evidence behind the colour

Independent financial-integrity verdict

Amber

Material variance

Data-migration segment: Amber — verified, not asserted

Financial integrity: Material variance. 4 of 5 tie-outs reconcile within tolerance; Inventory qty × valuation → GL carries a material variance to explain or resolve. This is the evidence behind the colour — an independent tie-out, not a self-reported status.

Set by the worst tie-out — a failure caps the band; it does not average out.

Module one · FI/CO tie-outs

The tie-outs, on this cycle's extract

Tie-out (standard SAP rule)	Sub-ledger	GL control a/c	Variance	Status
AR · Receivables → GL Data migration — Finance	$68,380,000	$68,380,000	—	Tied
AP · Payables → GL Data migration — Finance	$42,610,000	$42,610,000	—	Tied
Fixed-Assets sub-ledger → GL Data migration — Finance	$96,240,000	$96,240,000	—	Tied
Inventory qty × valuation → GL Data migration — Inventory	$80,630,000	$80,470,000	+$160,000 (+0.199%)	Material variance
GR/IR clearing → GL Data migration — Procurement	$6,200,000	$6,200,000	—	Tied

GL control anchors derive from the client's own PRAIS baseline — AR ≈ revenue × DSO/365 · AP ≈ COGS × DPO/365 · Inventory ≈ COGS × DIO/365 (revenue $480.0M, COGS 72%, DSO 52d / DPO 45d / DIO 85d — from the PRAIS assessment)

Convergence — total unreconciled across all tie-outs

The go-live confidence signal: is the whole gap closing, mock over mock?

$5.52M

Mock 1

$1.10M

Mock 2

$160k

Mock 3
this run

Dress rehearsal

Sign-off readiness

Band: Material variance (Amber). The total unreconciled gap is converging ($160k at Mock 3, down from $5.52M at Mock 1) — resolve the remaining valuation-class mismatch on inventory to reach Green at dress rehearsal.

Independent of whoever is reporting. The implementation team's status is a colour; this is the reconciliation behind it — the same evidence, neutral to both parties.

Module five · post-go-live

And did it stay reconciled after go-live?

Red

Integrity breach

Data-integrity drift: Integrity breach — caught independently

Six monthly closes after go-live. Five controls hold within tolerance; the Inventory sub-ledger — tied out cleanly at cutover — has silently diverged to $290k, a material breach. Independent monitoring dated the onset to September, three months after the sign-off, when a one-time cutover check had long since gone green.

Same summed control totals, re-checked each close — the drift a cutover sign-off structurally cannot see.

Control (sub-ledger vs GL)	Baseline	Latest	Onset	Status
Inventory qty × valuation → GL Post-go-live · tolerance $40k	$0	$290,000	2026-09	Breached
AR · Receivables → GL Post-go-live · tolerance $25k	$0	$33,000	2026-11	Drifting
AP · Payables → GL Post-go-live · tolerance $25k	$0	$3,000	—	Stable
Fixed-Assets sub-ledger → GL Post-go-live · tolerance $20k	$0	$1,000	—	Stable
Bank / cash reconciliation Post-go-live · tolerance $5k	$0	$1,000	—	Stable
Input/output VAT → GL Post-go-live · tolerance $15k	$0	$2,000	—	Stable

Each control is the summed reconciliation variance (Σ|sub-ledger − GL|) re-measured each close — only the sums are posted, parsed in the browser, zero-egress. Stable = within tolerance · Drifting = over tolerance or rising off the go-live baseline · Breached = over the materiality threshold. The onset is the first crossing, so the drift is dated, not just detected. A trend on control totals — it flags that a control diverged and when, not which record is wrong; locating the rows is the client's own remediation step.