Reconciliation AI Assistant (Bank, Sub-Ledger & Balance Sheet)
Match statements and sub-ledgers to the general ledger, propose an explanation for every break and assemble the workpaper — with tolerances, evaluation, audit trails and preparer and reviewer sign-off before anything clears.
Ingest bank statements, sub-ledger detail and general-ledger balances from feeds, camt.053/BAI2 files or API.
02
Normalise dates, currency, references and counterparty identifiers across both sides.
Reason
03
Match one to one, one to many and many to many inside the agreed amount and date tolerances.
04
Separate timing differences already in flight from differences that are genuinely unexplained.
05
Draw on standing reconciling items, prior clearing patterns and the account's own history.
Decide
06
Classify every remaining break — timing, in transit, FX revaluation, fee, duplicate, error or unknown.
07
Age each open item against the client's thresholds and route it to the named preparer.
Out
08
Assemble the workpaper: matched sets, open breaks, proposed explanations and the evidence behind them.
09
Propose adjusting journals for a preparer to raise — the agent posts nothing and clears nothing itself.
→Product statement
The agent proposes matches and explains breaks; a named preparer clears them and a second person reviews the reconciliation.
Example workflow
One account, end to end
AgentHuman
1Both sides receivedBank statement, sub-ledger extract and GL balance
2Sides normalisedDates, currency, references, counterparty identifiers and the opening position
3Matches proposedOne-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many, in tolerance
4Breaks classifiedTiming, in transit, FX revaluation, fee, duplicate or unexplained — each with an age
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — the agent matches and classifies before anyone is asked to clear anything.
5DecisionSplits on the confidence threshold
High confidence
Matched in tolerance with a supported explanation — proposed in the workpaper.
Low confidence
Unmatched, aged or unexplained — held for the preparer.
Preparer review
The break is held with both sides, the proposed explanation, its age and the evidence.
Accept · Correct · Escalate
Cleared — handed back▼
6Workpaper assembledMatched sets, breaks and evidence — nothing posted
7Outcome evaluatedMatch rate, break rate, ageing profile and how many explanations the preparer kept
Overrides
Explanations the preparer rewrites are counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Posting an adjusting journal to clear a break.
Closing or writing off a reconciling item.
Signing the reconciliation as preparer or reviewer.
Forcing a balance to agree with a plug.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Match both sides within the approved tolerances and date windows.
✓Classify each break and age it against the client's thresholds.
✓Draft an explanation and attach the evidence it rests on.
✓Assemble the workpaper and route every break to its named preparer.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Clearing a break and posting its journal are not among them.
Carrying an unexplained item into the next period.
Suspense and clearing-account entries.
Intercompany differences between two entities' books.
Changes to matching rules, tolerances or ageing thresholds.
Example output
One break, annotated
Everything the agent proposes is attached to the two sides it came from.
Reconciliation output · single breakIllustrative example
Account
Statement line
Amount
Proposed match
Confidence
Residual
Main operating bank
Credit, unmatched
$18,450.00
Two ledger receipts, one charge
91%
Bank charge, journal proposed
As receivedThe statement line and the ledger side exactly as the sources delivered them — the agent normalises dates and references but invents no entry.
Evidence usedStatement line detailTwo open ledger receiptsPrior-period fee pattern
Why a residualThe receipts account for the line except the charge, so the difference is a fee the ledger has not booked — not a missing receipt.
ActionAcceptCorrectEscalate
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold no match is proposed and the line stays open. Either way a preparer clears the break and raises the journal.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
All lines, both sidesStatement, sub-ledger and GL
03Matching
Apply client-specific context
Use approved tolerances, standing reconciling items and the account's own clearing history.
01Approved path
Reduce routine tie-out work
Clean, in-tolerance lines are matched and set aside without anyone ticking the statement by hand.
02Human review
Focus the team on the breaks
Unmatched, aged and unexplained items reach the preparer with the work already done on them.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain both sides, the match set, the proposed explanation, confidence, evaluator result and the preparer's decision — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Aggregate match quality can look acceptable while a small number of accounts carry most of the open breaks and nearly all of the unexplained value. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Clearing and suspense accounts
5.4%
3.6×
Review
Multi-currency revalued accounts
4.0%
2.7×
Review
Intercompany pairs
2.9%
1.9×
Watch
Stable low-volume accruals
1.0%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: lift vs. stable-account baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Closed periods are the regression set
Each cycle leaves a matching rule re-approved, a break class added or a tolerance changed — and a set of closed periods to replay it against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Break rate or ageing rises on an account.
02Diagnose
Failure traced to the feed, a matching rule, a tolerance or a class.
03Improve
The rule, tolerance or class is re-approved by its control owner and version-linked.
04Verify
The change is re-run over signed periods.
05Learn
Those periods become a standing replay set and the change enters the runbook.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. No tolerance widens until a replay shows which breaks it would have absorbed.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — account scoping, data, matching and break handling, evaluation, integration, then a close run in parallel.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Account scoping, risk ranking and automation boundary.
02Source and statement-format assessment.
03Tolerance, date-window and ageing-threshold mapping.
04Ingestion and normalisation of both sides.
05Matching rules and one-to-many configuration.
06Break classification and explanation drafting.
07Preparer and reviewer workflow and sign-off.
08Workpaper assembly and evidence capture.
09Adjusting-journal proposals and routing.
10Evaluation suite and closed-period replay.
11Close-platform and general-ledger integration.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne account groupProductionProduction integrationAdvancedMultiple entities / systems
Introduced at Pilot
Match and break proposals✓✓✓
Preparer and reviewer sign-off✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Client tolerances and match rules—✓✓
Workpaper assembly and evidence—✓✓
Adjusting-journal proposals—✓✓
Ageing and escalation thresholds—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Intercompany and multi-currency——✓
Multi-entity close orchestration——✓
Enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on account count and risk ranking, statement formats and ledger integrations, transaction volume, sign-off controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01The account list, with risk ranking and named owners→Account scoping, risk ranking and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
02Current tolerances, date windows and ageing thresholds→Tolerance, date-window and ageing-threshold mappingWeek 1
03Statement files and sub-ledger extracts for a full period→Ingestion and normalisation, and the matching baselineWeek 2
04Access to bank feeds, ledger and sub-ledger APIs or exports→Source-system and statement-format assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Your break categories and standing reconciling items→Break classification and explanation draftingWeek 3
06Signed reconciliations from several recent closes→Evaluation suite, closed-period replay and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named preparers, reviewers and the escalation path→Preparer and reviewer workflow, then the close run in parallelWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 is the last evaluation week and the first week of a close run in parallel.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Account scoping, risk ranking and the automation boundaryW2Statement and sub-ledger ingestion, and the matching baselineW3Matching rules, break classes and preparer routingW4Evaluation suite, closed-period replay and failure-mode testingW5Ledger and close-platform integration, first live close in parallelW6Reviewer comparison against the signed close, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandBars cover only the weeks their work is named in. Week 5 genuinely carries both.
At the end of W6One close has run in parallel and been compared with the reconciliation your reviewer signed.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Accounting AI agent
Build a reconciliation assistant around your close.
Show us the accounts you reconcile, the statement and sub-ledger sources behind them, and who prepares and reviews each one. We'll start with the accounts that take longest to tie out, and show you where the agent stops.
