A journal-entry review checklist.
Support, purpose, unusual activity, approvals, follow-up, and retained evidence. Use it as a review agenda rather than a form to file.
Review the entry, then review the evidence behind it.
A journal entry is easy to approve and hard to defend later. The prompts below are ordered so that a reviewer catches the structural problems before spending time on the details.
Entries that warrant extra review time
These are patterns, not rules. Adjust the list to the risks in your own ledger.
| Category | Why it needs attention | What to request |
|---|---|---|
| Manual entry outside the normal pattern | Bypasses whatever control creates and reviews routine entries | Who prepared it, who approved it, and the source document |
| Round-number or period-end entry | Often a plug that was reverse-engineered to balance | The calculation, not just the final figure |
| Entry posted after the reporting cutoff | Moves value between periods | The business reason and the correct period |
| Entry to a related-party or intercompany account | Arms-length terms and eliminations are affected | Agreement terms and the confirmation |
| Reversal of a prior-period entry | Signals a prior estimate was wrong | The original estimate and the reason for the change |
| Entry that clears a long-aged reconciling item | Writes down or reclassifies an unresolved difference | The investigation trail and approval level |
| Estimate-driven accrual or reserve | Depends on judgment rather than a transaction | The support, the assumptions, and who reviewed them |
Fourteen questions in review order
Work down the list rather than across it. Structural problems are cheaper to fix before the detail review starts.
- 01What is the entry's purpose, stated in one sentence, and does it match the account and period used?
- 02Is the amount supported by a source document, or is it derived from a schedule?
- 03If it is derived, can the schedule be re-performed by someone other than the preparer?
- 04Does the entry sit outside the normal pattern for this account, and is that explained?
- 05Is the posting period correct given the economic event, rather than the date it was prepared?
- 06Is this an estimate, a correction, or a reclassification? The review depth differs for each.
- 07For estimates, what assumptions were used, and who is qualified to challenge them?
- 08Is the entry consistent with the prior period, and if not, is the change explained?
- 09Has anything been netted together that should be separately visible?
- 10Does the entry have an approver who is not the preparer, and is that approval recorded?
- 11Has this entry, or the same adjustment, appeared in a previous period as well?
- 12What review questions were raised, and how were they resolved?
- 13Where is the support retained, and for how long is it kept?
- 14If this entry is later challenged, can the full rationale be reconstructed without the preparer?
Evidence a reviewer should be able to request
Any of these being unavailable is a finding in itself, not an inconvenience.
- The source document or system record the entry was created from.
- The schedule or calculation, if the amount was derived rather than captured.
- The policy or approval rule that determined the account, period, and level of review.
- The identity and date of the approver, recorded separately from the preparer.
- Any reviewer question raised on the entry and the recorded resolution.
- A note of any prior-period entry this one corrects or reverses.
What to record when you request a change
A reviewer comment is only useful if it states the evidence required and the decision it affects.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Entry reference | Journal ID, batch, or period so the comment can be found later |
| Reviewer and date | Who raised it and when, separately from the preparer |
| Question or concern | The specific issue, not a general instruction to 'support this' |
| Evidence requested | Exactly what would resolve the question |
| Decision | Approved, approved with note, or returned for change |
| Follow-up owner and date | Who resolves it, and by when, if it is not resolved at review |
Could you re-perform this without the preparer?
If the answer is no, the entry is not a review problem, it is an evidence problem. Recording that once and fixing the underlying process is worth more than re-reviewing the same entry every month.
How does your team review journal entries?
We are interested in where review time actually goes, and what your reviewers wish they had at the point of review.