We are restoring the requested view from its saved state. Your account and work remain unchanged while you wait.
Back to the track — Accounts Payable Accountant
System proposes 212 invoices worth 3,480,000.00. One invoice for 46,000.00 is held, a supplier due 115,000.00 had bank details changed today, and yesterday's payment remains pending. Manager wants the file sent before noon. Build a known population, explicit exclusions and a link to bank settlement.
When a system shows 184 due invoices worth SAR 2,460,000.00, they have not all become payments. This is a proposal population bounded by cut-off date, company, currency, payment method, suppliers, invoices and hold states. AP fixes count, total and extraction version before exclusions because a silently changing file cannot be reviewed. If seven blocked invoices are removed and SAR 2,364,000.00 is presented without original population, the approver cannot distinguish control from manipulation. The proposal cover shows entries, exclusions and reasons, making payment net the result of a clear list rather than personal filters.
Due date is not always invoice date plus a stored number. Terms start from a contractual event such as invoice, receipt or acceptance and may be affected by holiday, dispute or credit note. If terms are thirty days from receipt on 18/09/2026, an invoice dated 10/09/2026 does not make payment due on 10/10/2026. Manual changes to basis date show reason and approval because acceleration releases cash early while delay harms supplier and reputation. Review unusual terms and changed dates; posting date measures AP speed, not supplier entitlement.
Every due item passes release tests: approved and unique invoice, closed exceptions, applied credit notes, active verified supplier data, no legal or contractual hold, and available payment method. A time-due invoice blocked for receipt variance does not enter the file and rely on someone remembering to remove it. The engine reads hold state and reports seven excluded items worth SAR 96,000.00 with reasons. A blocked invoice is not zeroed by journal to disappear from proposal; it is a liability under investigation or an unapproved claim, and honest state matters more than a neat list.
Credit notes, advances and deductions apply before cash is set. If a supplier has a SAR 115,000.00 invoice and unallocated SAR 23,000.00 credit note, paying gross and awaiting refund turns an allocation error into cash exposure. Search debit balances and open credits within supplier and across entities under policy, with explicit approval before cross-entity offset. Do not reduce payment by an unsupported claim against the supplier; a manual deduction may leave supplier statement overdue and create another dispute. Every payment reduction links to a document and agreement.
Early-payment discount is a return-and-liquidity decision, not an automatic field. SAR 18,400.00 may appear saving, but test eligibility date, dispute status, cash accelerated and alternative liquidity cost. Not every case needs a complex model, but reason for taking or leaving discount is recorded and applied consistently rather than to the loudest supplier. If earned, journal and tax treatment follow policy and link to invoice; bank amount cannot simply be reduced while supplier and ledger remain gross. An unallocated difference returns in supplier reconciliation as an underpaid invoice.
The treatment starts from these documents. Follow the numbers to identify recognition date, amount, counterparty, reference and approval evidence before preparing the entry.
Facts and supporting evidence
Bank executed an approved 57,500.00 invoice payment and returned settlement reference.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Accounts payable | 57,500.00 | |
| Bank | 57,500.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 57,500.00 | 57,500.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
Payable settles at the authorised event under posting policy and journal links bank reference.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: Bank executed an approved 57,500.00 invoice payment and returned settlement reference. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings Payment proposal cover, Bank-file release record explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the purchase order, receipt evidence, tax invoice and payment approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Accounts payable) and the credit side (Bank). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 57,500.00 and total credits 57,500.00. Debit detail: Accounts payable for 57,500.00. Credit detail: Bank for 57,500.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the payables control account, supplier subledger and supplier statement. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: Bank is overstated 57,500.00 and an unsupported clearing balance remains. Do not close until the journal agrees with payables ageing, input VAT and cash and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.
System retains proposal ID, population, cut-off and exclusions, then approval ID, payment batch, bank-file hash and line status. Pending is queried by reference rather than rerun as new invoice. Bank results match payment, invoice and supplier, and rejections return to exception queue rather than a silent new file.
Build a forty-item payment proposal, document exclusions and approval, then link each line to bank result or open item.
Work output: A workbook
These are yours once downloaded, and need no account. Fill them with your own figures and keep them in your portfolio.
Compare supplier balance before payment with explained items; tool measures remainder while workpaper proves status.
A payment proposal reveals risks and bank status progressively.
What you haveProposal is 3,480,000.00 from 212 items.
The arithmetic in this case runs in the tool itself, which is open to you any time with your own figures.
Log item wrongly included or excluded, pre/post-bank state and approval reference or its absence.
This is not sent anywhere and not stored here. Write it down for yourself — in the workpaper you downloaded, or on paper.
A proposal is not a payment. Freeze population, exclusions and approval, then link every line to bank status and ledger settlement.
Yesterday's pending payment appears in today's proposal. How do you prevent duplication and decide its state?
Answer every question. Getting them all right records this lesson; you may retry as often as you need.
Reading alone records nothing.
The complete applied walkthrough is available below while the recording is prepared.
I freeze 212 items, remove held invoice and supplier with bank change, send approved version and return bank results line by line. Rejection reopens payable while pending remains queried, not rerun.
The riskiest moment is a supplier bank-account change between proposal creation and transmission. Approved version binds each beneficiary to verified account and prevents later master-data updates from changing a ready file without reapproval. An email requesting a new account two hours before payment is not grounds to bypass independent verification. Hold supplier or payment, route through known-channel master-data change, then recreate proposal after activation. Editing the bank account only in Excel bypasses the system and creates an invisible difference between supplier ledger and bank until cash leaves. Master data is part of the payment, not background.
After review, the approved version has number, value, count and file fingerprint. Approver reviews summary, population and exceptions within authority rather than signing a cover detached from transmitted details. Bank file is generated from that version and value, count and fingerprint are compared. Reopening proposal to correct even a supplier name changes version and triggers approval proportionate to effect; 'cosmetic change' cannot bypass linkage. A fingerprint proves reviewed bytes were transmitted, but not that bank account is correct, so data and authority controls remain separate.
Transmission is not successful payment. Bank states include received file, structurally accepted, line rejected, payments processed and account debited. Retain response at file and line level. If one account among 184 is rejected, do not resubmit all under a new number and pay 183 twice; isolate rejected item under stable identity and retry after correction. If connection breaks without response, search file state and fingerprint before resubmission. Idempotency is simple: the same event does not create two payments because user missed a success screen. Each attempt has time and result while original payment reference remains one.
The run finishes by reconciling bank, ledger and supplier account, not by an accepted label. Compare proposal net SAR 2,345,600.00 to bank debit, then link each line to invoice clearing. Bank fees, FX and partial rejections are separate explanations rather than charged to a random supplier. Bank may accept today and debit tomorrow, so payment-in-transit remains clear until settlement. A returned payment reopens supplier and original invoices with return reason; it is not income. Final bridge proves approved population became actual cash and correct clearing without unexplained difference.
Some conditions mean no payment run should start: unlocked population, large unexplained supplier-statement difference, unverified bank change, value approver also creating file, blocked invoices absent from exclusion report, or prior-day bank reconciliation unavailable. Supplier pressure and month end do not alter this. AP records stop reason, amount, owner and required decision, escalating under matrix. A documented late payment can be repaired and communicated; a wrong payment may not return. Professional execution moves the right liability to the right beneficiary once on an explainable date, not merely fast.
Facts and supporting evidence
A 23,000.00 partial payment was explicitly approved against a 69,000.00 invoice.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Accounts payable | 23,000.00 | |
| Bank | 23,000.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 23,000.00 | 23,000.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
The remaining 46,000.00 stays open under invoice identity; system does not clear gross.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: A 23,000.00 partial payment was explicitly approved against a 69,000.00 invoice. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings Payment proposal cover, Bank-file release record explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the purchase order, receipt evidence, tax invoice and payment approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Accounts payable) and the credit side (Bank). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 23,000.00 and total credits 23,000.00. Debit detail: Accounts payable for 23,000.00. Credit detail: Bank for 23,000.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the payables control account, supplier subledger and supplier statement. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: False income 46,000.00 appears and a valid payable disappears. Do not close until the journal agrees with payables ageing, input VAT and cash and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.
Facts and supporting evidence
Bank rejected a 46,000.00 payment after system had reduced payable and bank.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Bank | 46,000.00 | |
| Accounts payable | 46,000.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 46,000.00 | 46,000.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
Rejection restores cash and payable and links to payment attempt.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: Bank rejected a 46,000.00 payment after system had reduced payable and bank. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings Payment proposal cover, Bank-file release record explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the purchase order, receipt evidence, tax invoice and payment approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Bank) and the credit side (Accounts payable). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 46,000.00 and total credits 46,000.00. Debit detail: Bank for 46,000.00. Credit detail: Accounts payable for 46,000.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the payables control account, supplier subledger and supplier statement. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: Payable is understated 46,000.00 and income overstated 46,000.00. Do not close until the journal agrees with payables ageing, input VAT and cash and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.
Facts and supporting evidence
A second 23,000.00 payment left after original invoice settled and supplier acknowledged recovery.
Correct treatment and entry
| Account | Debit | Credit |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier recovery receivable | 23,000.00 | |
| Bank | 23,000.00 | |
| Total (SAR) | 23,000.00 | 23,000.00 |
Treatment and financial effect
No payable remains to clear; a separate recovery right links duplicate payment.
Reperformance starts from this case's own facts: A second 23,000.00 payment left after original invoice settled and supplier acknowledged recovery. Obtain the original source that proves this event. The training drawings Payment proposal cover, Bank-file release record explain field shape and reading order; they do not replace the case document or transfer their figures into it. Match entity, period, currency, reference and version to the purchase order, receipt evidence, tax invoice and payment approval, then confirm that the source supports the debit side (Supplier recovery receivable) and the credit side (Bank). Missing ownership, date, reference or approval remains an open exception; a balancing journal or undocumented assumption does not cure it.
Remeasure from the facts before reading the proposed journal, then add it independently: total debits 23,000.00 and total credits 23,000.00. Debit detail: Supplier recovery receivable for 23,000.00. Credit detail: Bank for 23,000.00. Link every line to the recognition or measurement rule explained in the lecture, then trace its reference and posting date. After posting, test the payables control account, supplier subledger and supplier statement. Equal sides prove arithmetic only, not the correct account, period or classification.
Before close, compare the correct treatment with the common alternative and record its specific effect: A 23,000.00 supplier debit appears without owner or follow-up. Do not close until the journal agrees with payables ageing, input VAT and cash and an independent reviewer can move from balance to account, reference and this event's own source. Keep the calculation, source version, journal identifier, reconciliation result and unresolved exceptions in the same workpaper. An attached file without a stated conclusion is not review evidence.