Before You Start
Obtain the custodian's submission, amount-received evidence, purpose/conditions, payment support, return evidence and actual written delegation. Confirm that the reviewer did not hold or spend the advance. If independence is compromised, identify the conflict and obtain the required alternative reviewer rather than signing twice under different role labels.
The output is a line-by-line review finding with evidence, reasons and proposed disposition. Review alone supplies no settlement authority. Keep private receipts and bank references in approved records, with only permitted summaries here.
Steps
- Confirm your independence and the applicable review remit; record any unresolved conflict.
- Tie the submission total to evidence of the amount received.
- Match each claimed payment to its payment reference and support, preserving missing links.
- Compare the reported return with actual return evidence, not the custodian's total alone.
- Classify each reviewed line as accepted within the review remit, disputed or awaiting evidence, with limits.
- Write the evidence-based reason for each classification and the remaining question.
- Record the proposed disposition and refer it to the approver identified by actual delegation.
The classifications organize this review; they are not universal accounting categories or findings of legal liability.
Fictional Review Table
Every amount and record below is invented USD. The custodian submits an advance of 1,000: reported payments 620, returned cash 300 and a disputed voucher 80. The review finds:
| Component | USD | Review finding and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Matched payment lines | 560 | Accepted for this review: matching payment references and support supplied; not settlement approval |
| Remainder of reported payments | 60 | Awaiting evidence: no payment reference supplied |
| Returned balance | 300 | Return matches supplied deposit evidence; not an expense |
| Separate voucher | 80 | Disputed: payee information missing; resolution pending |
| Total traced categories | 1,000 | 560 + 60 + 300 + 80 |
The reported-payment subtotal is 560 + 60 = 620. Only 560 has matched payment support in this review. The 60 and 80 require different follow-up: a missing payment link and a disputed voucher. Neither can disappear into the accepted subtotal merely because all categories add to 1,000.
Exception: Return Does Not Match
Here the 300 matches deposit evidence. If it did not, retain reported and evidenced returns separately, record the actual difference and request the missing source. Do not call a planned deposit returned cash or assign a shortage to a person without evidence. Do not invent a balancing adjustment. An arithmetic reconciliation can be complete while support and disposition remain unresolved.
Authorization
Record the review findings and proposed actions for the 60 and 80. The actual written delegation must identify who may authorize settlement; no supplied delegation establishes that the reviewer has that power. Leave the settlement decision PENDING until the authorized outcome, reasons and conditions are recorded. Review completion and any later posting, return or settlement execution remain distinct facts.
For the custodian's different task, see prepare the account. Use completion versus settlement for the conceptual distinction.
Source and Scope
UNFPA's September 2016 advance policy, steps 8-9, illustrates separate reconciliation/review in a historical direct-implementation process; current currency is unverified. UNDP's undated Global Fund guidance separates reporting from acceptance. CC8 sections 2.7/6.6 (November 27, 2024, England and Wales) supports separate financial checks. GWSCPA Bank Reconciliations (September 1, 2022, US practice) and OSCR banking guidance (July 23, 2026, Scotland) inform review evidence by explicit editorial analogy from bank reconciliation, not a cash-settlement mandate. Checked November 1, 2026. The classifications, case and workflow are OpenAid design.