Primary standard describing documentation of procedures, evidence, conclusions, preparer, and reviewer. Applicability depends on the engagement.
Controller resource · Close operations
Month-end close automation checklist: controls before speed.
Use this worksheet to decide which close work is ready for deterministic automation, which work can be agent-prepared, and which decisions must stay explicitly human. It is a design and operating checklist—not audit advice or a claim that a tool makes a close compliant.
Prepared by Sebastian Product & EngineeringUpdated July 20, 2026Educational worksheet · not audit advice
How to use it
Evaluate one real workflow, not a generic promise.
A close process is not ready for automation merely because someone can describe the happy path. The automation boundary should be defined at the level of inputs, transformation, exception behavior, approval, and the record retained after execution. If any one of those is implicit, speed can make an unclear control fail faster.
Start with one material workflow and one period. Record the source population, cutoff, owner, reviewer, dependencies, evidence required, and the exact event that permits the work to move forward. Then classify each step as deterministic, agent-prepared, or human-only. That classification should be visible to the operator and testable by the reviewer.
Original controller worksheet
Seven gates for a close workflow
- 01
Define the accounting boundary
Ask: Which entity, ledger, period, currency, accounts, and cutoff rules are in scope?
Retain: A versioned scope record and the owner who can approve a scope change.
- 02
Map dependencies and stop conditions
Ask: What upstream work must be complete, and what condition must block execution?
Retain: A dependency graph or explicit predecessor list with observable completion states.
- 03
Classify every step
Ask: Is the step deterministic, agent-prepared for review, or a human judgment?
Retain: A workflow map that labels the actor and permitted action at each transition.
- 04
Bind work to its source
Ask: Can a reviewer identify the exact source population and parameters used?
Retain: Source version, query or report parameters, row count, and relevant control totals.
- 05
Make the write boundary explicit
Ask: What can prepare, approve, create, post, reject, or reverse an accounting record?
Retain: Permission and approval rules plus a test showing the automation cannot bypass them.
- 06
Exercise exceptions before launch
Ask: What happens on missing data, duplicates, imbalance, timeout, or changed upstream data?
Retain: Test cases, expected stop behavior, escalation owner, and an idempotent retry rule.
- 07
Retain the operating record
Ask: Can another qualified reviewer reconstruct what ran, who decided, and what changed?
Retain: Timestamped activity, inputs, outputs, approvals, exceptions, and final disposition.
Decision tool
Launch decision matrix
Treat a failed gate as a design input, not a documentation chore. “Conditional” means the workflow can proceed only inside the stated scope and must stop outside it.
| State / score | Minimum evidence | Decision rule |
|---|---|---|
| Green | Inputs, actor, approval, exception, and retained evidence are testable. | Launch in the bounded scope. |
| Conditional | Happy path is testable but a named exception remains manual. | Launch only with the stop condition and owner visible. |
| Red | Source, authority, or exception behavior is implicit. | Do not automate the write; redesign the workflow. |
Completed teaching example
Worked example: payroll accrual preparation
This fictional example shows how a controller can record a conditional decision without implying that an entire close is automated.
| Field | Completed example | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | US entity · June 2026 · payroll expense and accrued payroll | One entity and one recurring entry family; no cross-entity generalization. |
| Classification | Deterministic calculation · agent-prepared explanation · human approval | The actor changes at the judgment and write boundaries. |
| Required evidence | Payroll register version, headcount bridge, row count, gross-pay control total | The reviewer can identify the exact population and completeness checks. |
| Stop condition | Register total differs from approved payroll by more than the policy threshold | The workflow escalates; it does not invent or force a balancing amount. |
| Decision | Conditional | Prepare a pending-review draft only. A finance reviewer decides whether to post. |
Product boundary
How this maps to Sebastian today
Sebastian’s implemented close workspace persists tasks, owners, approvers, dependencies, files, comments, review workbooks, and activity. Dependencies produce concrete blockers rather than relying on a manually maintained label.
Versioned source evidence can retain query parameters, row counts, control totals, rows, and a canonical content hash. The agent journal tool pauses for approval and creates a balanced pending-review draft; it does not post the entry directly.
The current product does not claim to enforce an accounting-period lock, general ERP write-back, generalized reconciliation automation, or broad AP automation. Those remain implementation gates, so this checklist should mark them red until the relevant control exists and is tested.
Primary references
Standards context, with applicability boundaries.
Commission interpretive guidance for management assessments under Exchange Act rules; applicability depends on the issuer and reporting context.
Go deeper
See the work up close.
Keep your ERP. Close and plan in one pane.
AI for accounting and FP&A on the ledger you already run. No migration. No rip and replace.
Agents at work · Matching an invoice to its PO line…