Last quarter the reconciliation explained fourteen items. Each got a reason, each got a draft entry, and the workbook was signed off. This quarter six of them are back, unchanged, because the entries were never posted.
Two acts, two people
The person who explains a difference — the accountant, the analyst — is usually not the person who posts the correction in the entity's ledger. The controller has their own close, their own priorities, and an inbox where the draft entry arrived between two other requests. Nothing in the process notices that the entry was not booked until the item reappears.
So it gets explained again. Same reason, same entry, another email. The Groundhog Day quality of intercompany reconciliation comes largely from this gap.
The list
The fix is not technology; it is a list. Compare this period's open items with last period's explained items by reference and amount. Anything that matches is not a new difference: it is explained Q2, not booked, and it belongs on a carried-forward list with the original explanation linked and the controller named.
The list does three things. It stops the re-explaining. It makes the pattern visible — "DE GmbH has six unposted entries from Q2" is a management conversation, not a reconciliation note. And it gives the auditor exactly what they ask for about control over intercompany: evidence that differences were identified, explained and followed up, with dates.
What TieOut Pilot does with it
The carried-forward list is generated automatically from the prior period's explanations. Recurring items are not sent to the model again; they are presented with the prior explanation and a one-click re-send of the draft entry to the controller. Items that have been carried forward twice are flagged for escalation.
It is a small feature. In practice it is the one design partners mention first.