Find a Posted Allocation Mismatch

The Practical Check

Test posted lines against supplied approved shares, not a newly chosen allocation base. Match invoice, center and amount together. A repeated amount can be legitimate; a net total can conceal several discrepancies. Objective: name each evidence mismatch and request its supporting trail without prescribing an entry.

Your Starting Facts

Fictional USD worksheet WS-C1: INV-301 utilities 600 split P300/Q150/U150; INV-302 security 300 split P150/Q75/U75. Posted GL-9001: INV-301 P300; 9002: INV-301 Q150; 9003: INV-301 U150; 9004: INV-302 P150; 9005: INV-302 P75; 9006: INV-301 Q150. Find the repeated pair, missing pair and wrong center. Are 9002 and 9003 duplicates?

Worked Example

9006 repeats the INV-301/Q150 pair in 9002. INV-302/U75 is absent. 9005 uses P for the 75 assigned to Q. Equal amounts in 9002/9003 belong to different centers, a decoy. Worksheet totals P450/Q225/U225 = 900; posted P525/Q300/U150 = 975. Differences P+75/Q+75/U-75 net +75, consistent with a 150 repetition and 75 omission; the coding mismatch redistributes 75. Ask finance for the invoices, approval record and ledger audit trail. An authorized owner verifies causes and decides corrections; do not reconsider the approved driver.

Try the Judgment Exercise

Which account of the USD 75 net excess is supported?

Repeated pair 150 minus omitted pair 75; also a coding mismatchEvery repeated USD 150 is a duplicateRemove USD 75 from P to balance the totalChange the allocation base

Use the Checking Prompt

Copy this prompt into your own AI tool with non-sensitive inputs, then check the answer yourself. OpenAid does not send this text to an AI service.

Using only fictional WS-C1 and the six posted lines above, match invoice/center/amount. List repeated, missing, miscoded and decoy pairs; compute worksheet/posted totals by center and net. Request evidence without giving entries, choosing a driver or declaring fraud. Use UNKNOWN for causes/authority. No sensitive records.

Continue With the Resource

Continue the Related Journey

Optional Facilitator Note

WS-C2, fictional USD: INV-401 approved P120/Q80; INV-402 approved P80/Q120. Posted T1 INV-401 P120; T2 INV-401 Q80; T3 INV-402 P80; T4 INV-402 Q120. Find any mismatch.

Work Product: None supplied: each invoice totals 200, each center 200, overall 400. Repeated 80/120 amounts belong to different pairs. No correction request is supported. Source scope: NCVO allocation records (UK, December 1, 2022), HMRC audit/duplicate controls (UK VAT, July 27, 2026), CC 8 (England/Wales, November 27, 2024), Australian duplicate prevention and NHS Scotland procurement guidance (April 29, 2021) provide bounded background. GWSCPA September 1, 2022 independent BANK-review guidance is an editorial analogy here. All checked November 1, 2026; no fraud finding or accounting standard claimed.

Debrief and Reasons

Which supplied fact supports the answer?
Separate evidence from inference.
What remains unknown or conditional?
Do not turn a learning answer into authority.

Source and Scope

Cost Allocation and Apportionment
reviewed December 1, 2022; Transparent calculation records
Procure to pay, part 4
updated July 27, 2026; Tax invoice control 2; AP adjustments need valid reason and audit trail
Prevent duplicates
Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre, undated current page; Summary; How to check
Internal Financial Controls for Charities
updated November 27, 2024; 2.5 budgets;2.6 authorization compliance/control review;2.7 split duties;6.1 expenditure and purchase-ledger reconciliation
Bank reconciliations
Patricia A. O'Malley CPA, September 1, 2022; Independent review and filing evidence
Procurement fraud
April 29, 2021; How to manage: duplicate invoices

Fictional examples for practice. Completing an exercise does not certify competence.

From OpenAid · www.opendevelopmentaid.org/learn/learn-find-a-posted-allocation-mismatch · free to use with credit