AI Agents for the IFS
Month End Close
On a project ledger the same subcontract cost can legitimately belong to two different periods, depending on which of three dates the policy uses.
- A cost centre close asks what an account did. A project close asks whether each project is where it should be, and that evidence is spread across purchasing, time, inventory, certification and billing.
- There are three plausible cut off dates for the same subcontract cost. A close that does not state which basis it used produces figures nobody can reconcile later.
- In a worked review of 612,000 of aged work in progress, 44 percent was pure retrieval. Billable work never invoiced and cost booked to the wrong project.
- Eleven coding errors in one period is a rule problem, not eleven mistakes. The pattern matters more than the corrections.
- Uncertified subcontract valuations are a different accounting question from an ordinary accrual and should never be blended into one number.
AI agents for the IFS month end close rebuild each project's position from the transactions before day one, propose accruals from receipts without invoices, list uncertified subcontract valuations separately from ordinary accruals, and draw intercompany from both sides at document level. ChatFin states the cut off basis on every figure and prepares everything as a proposal for a named person to release.
The reason a project close runs long is rarely the arithmetic. It is that the evidence needed to justify work in progress sits across five systems and is requested on day two when it existed on day minus three. In a worked review, 44 percent of an aged work in progress balance turned out to be billable work never invoiced or cost booked against the wrong project, both findable and neither found inside the close window.
A project close asks a harder question than a cost centre close
A cost centre close asks what an account did. A project close asks whether each project is where it should be, and that answer depends on evidence spread across purchasing, time booking, inventory, subcontract certification and billing. Assembling it is the close.
| Task | Cost centre close | Project close |
|---|---|---|
| Accruals | Open purchase orders | Open orders plus uncertified subcontract valuations |
| Revenue | Billed, or a schedule | Derived from progress, which is a judgement |
| Work in progress | Rarely material | A balance somebody must justify every month |
| Reconciliation | Subledger to general ledger | Also project ledger to general ledger |
| Cut off | Invoice date | Valuation date, certification date and delivery date, which can all differ |
The last row is the one that catches people. On a project ledger there are three plausible cut off dates for the same transaction, and a close that does not state which it used produces figures nobody can reconcile later.
ChatFin states the cut off basis on every figure it produces. Where a transaction has more than one candidate date it reports both rather than silently choosing.
Assembling evidence before anyone asks for it
Most project close delay is waiting rather than working. The evidence exists on day minus three and is requested on day two.
Project positions rebuilt before day one
Cost, committed, certified, billed and work in progress per project with the transactions behind each figure, so the review starts from a work list.
Accruals proposed from receipts without invoices
Priced from the purchase order with the receipt document on every line.
Uncertified valuations listed separately
They are a different accounting question from an ordinary accrual and they should never be blended into one number.
Intercompany drawn from both sides at once
Differences listed at document level, because reconciling at totals lets a pair of offsetting errors survive.
Everything as a proposal
The agent prepares, a named person releases. There is no path where a posting happens without approval.
A worked work in progress review, 612,000 aged over 90 days
A portfolio shows 612,000 of cost incurred and not billed, aged over 90 days. The balance report says that and stops. Rebuilt from the transactions, it is five things.
| Cause | Amount | Projects | Proposal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billable, milestone not yet reached | 268,000 | 7 | No action. Attach the milestone date so it stops being reviewed monthly |
| Billable, invoice never raised | 141,000 | 5 | A billing list with the project, activity and approved cost |
| Cost booked to the wrong project | 92,000 | 11 | The correcting transfer, with both projects and the original document |
| Variation done, not agreed in writing | 74,000 | 3 | Commercial escalation. A contract question, not an accounting one |
| Genuinely not recoverable | 37,000 | 6 | Provision proposal with the evidence, for a person to accept or reject |
Only the last two lines are judgement. The first three are retrieval and they are 44 percent of the balance. The third line repeats every period while the coding rule that caused it stays in place, so the pattern matters more than the correction.
Cut off, and the three dates that disagree
The same subcontract cost can legitimately belong to two different periods depending on which date the policy uses. Without a written answer, different people close differently and the difference surfaces at audit.
ChatFin applies the cut off policy you document and reports the population that would move if a different basis were used. That single report ends most of the recurring arguments.
Intercompany, and the difference that nets to nothing
In a multi company IFS group intercompany is one of the largest recurring manual jobs in the close, and it is entirely mechanical.
| Task | Why it takes time | What an agent changes |
|---|---|---|
| Matching balances | Each side drawn separately, totals compared | Draw both sides at once and list differences at document level |
| Explaining a difference | Usually one document booked in a different period | Name the document and the period on both sides in one row |
| Agreeing with the counterparty | Email between two teams with two extracts | Both teams work one reconciled list with the same evidence |
| Recharges between projects | Often manual journals with no document trail | Report recharges with no supporting document as a standing exception |
| Currency revaluation | Rate selection, then applying it across open items | Propose the entry with the rate, the source and the population stated |
The failure worth naming is the difference that nets to something small. Two errors in opposite directions across a company pair produce a total that passes review and a document level position wrong on both sides. Reconciling at totals is what lets it survive.
ChatFin reconciles intercompany at document level rather than at totals, which is the only way an offsetting pair of errors becomes visible.
Revenue on a project, and why it is not a close task
Project revenue derived from progress is an accounting judgement built on an operational estimate. It cannot be automated and it should not be presented as if it were.
ChatFin recomputes revenue under the documented method and reports where the method or the inputs moved. It does not select a method and it does not judge an estimate.
Where this underperforms on IFS
Three, and they are prerequisites rather than outcomes.
ChatFin reports the reconciliation between the project ledger and the general ledger as a standing control rather than as an investigation triggered when something looks wrong.
Deeper in the IFS close
Three use cases sit under this hub, in build and shown rather than linked.
Worked on this page
Close task monitoring · Close exception identification · Flux analysis
Covered as sections here
Accruals · Work in progress · Cut off · Intercompany · Project to general ledger reconciliation · Provisions
Questions IFS close teams ask first
Why is work in progress the hardest balance on a project close?
Because one number hides five different things. In a worked review of 612,000 aged over 90 days, 268,000 was billable work correctly waiting on a milestone, 141,000 was billable work never invoiced, 92,000 was cost booked to the wrong project, 74,000 was a variation with no written instruction and 37,000 was not recoverable. Only the last two are judgement. ChatFin rebuilds the balance into those categories with the transactions behind each.
Which cut off date should a project close use?
Whichever one your policy documents, applied consistently, and stated on the figure. The same subcontract cost has a valuation date, a certification date, an invoice date and a delivery date, and they can fall in different periods. ChatFin applies the policy you document and reports the population that would move under a different basis, which ends most of the recurring arguments about whether a cost belongs in the month.
Can an agent post the close entries?
It prepares them. Accruals, provisions, correcting transfers and intercompany entries all come out as proposals with the source documents attached, and a named person releases them. ChatFin also reports the reconciliation between the project ledger and the general ledger as a standing control rather than as an investigation triggered when something looks wrong, because that gap is where most late surprises come from.
The evidence assembled on day minus three, not requested on day two.
ChatFin rebuilds cost, committed, certified, billed and work in progress per project from the transactions, and groups every reconciling item by cause and by owner.
Accruals are priced from the purchase order, uncertified valuations are listed separately, and every output is a proposal a named person releases.
Bring one period of aged work in progress. The comparison takes an hour.
Book a demoAll images are served from the Pexels content network. No third party product screenshots, vendor logos or licensed media are used on this page.
Bring your aged work in progress.
We will rebuild the same balance through ChatFin at project level, separate the retrieval from the judgement, and show the transactions behind every line.