Reconciliation Matching Methodology
See how Reconcile Locally separates supported matches from needs-review cases across exported bank, payout, order, and invoice files.
Try with sample files | View sample report
Problem statement
A reconciliation result is only useful when a reviewer can explain why rows were matched and why uncertain rows stayed open. Amount-only evidence is not enough when repeated values, timing gaps, or grouped payments create several plausible explanations.
Evidence decision example
| Line item | Amount |
|---|
| Exact payout ID plus amount | Strong match evidence |
| Same amount plus nearby date | Needs review |
| Amount-only candidate | Insufficient evidence |
Matching evidence used in the review workflow
- Exact source references are stronger than amount-only similarities.
- Dates support a match, but settlement timing means they should not be treated as exact proof by themselves.
- One-to-many and many-to-one candidates remain review cases until the supporting rows explain the full movement.
- Rows with incomplete evidence stay visible as needs review instead of being forced into a final match.
Inputs reviewed
- Bank exports with dates, signed amounts, descriptions, and original references.
- Source exports with orders, invoices, payouts, expected amounts, and source identifiers.
- Reviewer decisions preserved for the final report.
Review sequence
- Normalize dates, amounts, and references without overwriting original values.
- Evaluate exact-reference evidence before looser amount and date signals.
- Separate clear matches from duplicate candidates, grouped candidates, and amount differences.
- Keep unsupported explanations in review until another export or reviewer decision resolves them.
- Export matched rows first, review rows next, and unresolved rows separately.
Unsafe matching shortcuts
- Treating amount-only evidence as a final match.
- Ignoring repeated values or multiple plausible source rows.
- Hiding open amount differences inside a final matched total.
What the methodology protects
- Reviewers can trace each accepted match back to source-file evidence.
- Ambiguous rows remain visible instead of creating false certainty.
- The final report distinguishes supported matches from plausible candidates.
What still needs manual review
- Grouped, cross-period, multi-currency, and weak-reference cases may require another export.
- Accounting, tax, and posting decisions remain outside the matching workflow.
Content review and sources
Written and reviewed by the Reconcile Locally product team. Last reviewed June 7, 2026.
Guidance is checked against current product behavior and first-party documentation where available. Reconciliation results still require human review.
Frequently asked questions
Does the tool force an amount-only match?
No. Amount-only evidence remains a review signal when another row could plausibly explain the same bank movement.
What does needs review mean?
It means the available exported files do not yet provide enough evidence for a safe final match or explanation.