What gets automated
| Reconciliation | Sources compared | What Yoraito automates |
|---|---|---|
| Bank and cash | Bank statement ↔ GL cash | Four-pass matching, leftover classification, tie-out → /solutions/bank-reconciliation-software |
| Accounts receivable | AR aging ↔ AR control account | Tie-out, aged-item flags |
| Accounts payable | AP aging ↔ AP control account | Tie-out, duplicate-bill checks |
| Prepaids | Prepaid schedule ↔ GL | Rollforward rebuild, expired items with balances |
| Accruals | Accrual schedule ↔ GL | Reversal checks, true-up differences |
| Credit cards | Card statement ↔ GL | Matching, missing-receipt flags |
| Payroll | Payroll register ↔ GL | Department-level tie-out |
| Intercompany | Entity A ↔ Entity B | → guide: /resources/intercompany-reconciliation |
Automate the rules, not the judgment
Reconciliation work splits cleanly in two.
Rule-based work (Yoraito does this):
- Matching lines on amount, date and reference within written limits.
- Rolling balances forward: opening + additions − reductions = closing.
- Tying subledgers and schedules to the GL, to the cent.
- Flagging items past an age threshold.
Judgment (your team does this, with Yoraito's draft):
- Deciding what an unidentified transaction was.
- Approving entries.
- Accepting an explanation.
AI drafts notes for the judgment work and labels each one: backed by evidence, suggested by a pattern, or needing an owner. Your reviewer knows where to look first.
Why "show its work" is the point
Most reconciliation tools can produce a balanced reconciliation. The difference is what happens when someone asks how.
| Question from a reviewer or auditor | Typical answer | Yoraito's answer |
|---|---|---|
| Why did these two lines match? | "The system matched them" | The rule (pass 2: same amount, dates within 3 days) recorded on the match |
| How was this total calculated? | A screenshot or export | The saved SQL; rerun it and get the same total |
| Was any data missed? | "We imported everything" | Row counts and totals for every source, before and after |
| Who approved it? | A sign-off | Preparer, reviewer and dates, recorded separately |
This is what auditors call reperformance: getting the same result independently. It's also what PE sponsors and buyers' diligence teams ask for when they test your numbers.
Results teams look for
We don't publish benchmark claims we can't source. What teams measure during a pilot:
- Days to close, before and after, over three closes.
- Reviewer hours spent on reconciliations.
- Aged reconciling items at each month-end.
- Audit questions about reconciliations at the next fieldwork.
Where to start: a 90-day rollout
| Days | Reconciliations | Why this order |
|---|---|---|
| 1–30 | Cash and credit cards | Highest volume, clearest rules, tested by every auditor |
| 31–60 | AR, AP, prepaids, accruals | Tie-outs and rollforwards; quick wins once cash is clean |
| 61–90 | Payroll, fixed assets, deferred revenue | Lower frequency; benefit from the standard set earlier |
At each stage, run one parallel month against your existing reconciliations before switching over.
What "good" looks like at month-end
- Every in-scope account reconciled by BD4.
- No reconciling item older than 60 days without an owner and a plan.
- Every reconciliation reviewed by someone other than the preparer.
- Every figure reproducible from its saved query.
- Zero plugs.
Matching rules your team can read
Rules are written in plain terms your team can review and approve, for example: "match when the amount is identical and the dates are within three days". When a rule changes, the change is recorded with who approved it and when. That matters for audit: the matching logic your auditor tested in Q2 should be the logic you ran in Q4, or the change should be documented.
How it fits your stack
Yoraito connects to your GL and bank sources (22 named systems, 11 direct ). Your ERP stays the system of record. Yoraito prepares reconciliations and proposed entries for review.