Two Documents, Two Figures: When Client Documents Disagree

Jane Doe's folder holds a Doe Bank statement and a remittance letter from Doe Holdings. Both show the same payment. They show different figures for it, and neither says it corrects the other.

That's the case this piece covers: conflicting figures client documents, where two documents in the file show different figures for the same item and neither replaces the other. In this method, the Preparer logs both figures with their sources on one row and doesn't pick one. The Preparer asks the client about the difference. Any entry that rests on the item stays open, marked by hand, for the Reviewer's decision.

The plugin drafts; the Firm's preparer prepares; the Reviewer signs off. Every step here is one the Firm writes and keeps, in whatever systems the Firm already uses, and the Firm can adapt the document-handling steps; the Reviewer's sign-off on the whole file stays as it is. This piece states no rule about which document controls.

This piece gives a conflict log layout, a citation pattern, a client message, a marking table, a pre-review check, a Doe example and a line for the Firm's AI instructions.

A corrected copy, a totals gap, two documents that disagree

A corrected copy that replaces an earlier one is covered in two copies of one statement.

Totals that don't tie inside one document are covered in tying out AI-extracted totals.

A Preparer and Reviewer who read one entry differently are covered in when the Preparer and Reviewer disagree.

This case is different: the documents disagree, and neither one says it replaces the other.

What counts as conflicting figures, in this method

In this method, the Preparer logs a conflict when all of these are true:

• Two documents in the file show a figure for the same item.
• The figures differ as printed.
• Neither document says it corrects or replaces the other.

If the Preparer can't tell whether the documents show the same item, the Preparer logs the pair as a conflict and asks the client.

The conflict log

In this method, the Preparer logs each conflict on its own row on the file index, then runs the drafting pass. The Firm can add this layout to its index.

The Preparer copies each figure as the page prints it. The Preparer doesn't pick a figure, average them or adjust either one to match. Both stay on the row.

In this method, the Preparer adds any further document's figure, document ID and page to the row's note.

Citing both sources

In this method, the Firm's instructions ask for each drafted entry on a logged item to cite each document and page, and the Preparer checks each citation by hand. A pattern the Firm can adapt:

"[item]: [figure] per [copy ID], page [page]; [figure] per [copy ID], page [page]"

The Preparer checks the entry for each document, page and figure.

A line for the Firm's AI instructions

In this method, the Firm adds a line, in its own words, to its instructions for the drafting pass on a folder with a logged conflict. A version to adapt:

"Conflicting figures: [item]. The conflict log lists both figures and their pages. For any entry on this item, show both figures as printed, each with its document and page; the Preparer checks and marks entries by hand."

The line is the Firm's wording, not a promise about what any drafting software does. The Preparer still checks each entry against the conflict log and the pages it cites.

Asking about the difference

In this method, the Preparer asks the client about each conflict, as in the client question log. The Firm can adapt this message:

Hi Jane Doe, thanks for sending your documents. Two of them show different figures for [item]: [document A] shows [figure, as printed], and [document B] shows [figure, as printed]. Could you tell us what you know about the difference, and send any corrected copy through our usual upload? Thanks, [Preparer name] at [Firm]

If the Firm's own policy calls for other wording, the Firm's wording wins. Any further document steps, such as asking the issuer, follow the Firm's own policy.

Marking entries that rest on conflicting figures

In this method, the Preparer marks by hand, in the entry's note, every entry that rests on a logged conflict. The Firm can rename the marks.

Every mark stays on its entry, and the entry stays open for the Reviewer's decision. A mark doesn't pick a figure.

When the client answers

If the client explains the difference, the Preparer quotes the answer on the conflict log row and on the entry, and marks it "Client answer noted". The Preparer doesn't change either figure on the strength of the answer.

If the client sends a corrected copy that says it replaces one of the documents, the Preparer logs it as in the corrected-copy method linked above, notes it on the row, runs the drafting pass again and checks the new entries. The original entry keeps its note and mark, and stays open for the Reviewer's decision.

If the client can't explain the difference or doesn't answer, the Preparer notes that on the entry and marks it "Still differ". Any further document steps follow the Firm's own policy; the entry stays open for the Reviewer's decision.

The pre-review check

In this method, the Preparer reads the file against this check before it goes to the Reviewer. The Firm can add its own lines.

• Each conflict in the file has a row on the conflict log.
• Each row shows each figure as printed, with its document and page, and names who logged it.
• No row shows a figure the Preparer picked, averaged or adjusted.
• The Firm's instructions hold a conflicting-figures line for each logged conflict.
• Each entry on a logged item cites each document and page.
• Entries that rest on a logged conflict carry marks set by hand.
• Each conflict has a client question and a note for the Reviewer.

Who logs and who decides

The Firm names people for the document-handling steps; the Reviewer decides on entries and signs off. People at the Firm do every document-handling step.

In this method, the Preparer doesn't pick a figure, and the Firm's instructions don't ask the drafting pass to pick one. A mark or a log row tells the Reviewer where to look. It isn't a sign-off and doesn't stand in for one. The Reviewer sees every marked entry and the conflict log and decides what happens with each entry, and the Reviewer signs off on the whole file, conflict log included. No file is done without the Reviewer's sign-off.

A Doe example

The names and file below are made up for illustration.

Jane Doe is a synthetic client of the Firm. Alex Doe is the Preparer and Pat Doe is the Reviewer. Jane's folder holds a Doe Bank statement and a remittance letter from Doe Holdings.

Alex reads every page. The statement shows a figure for a payment from Doe Holdings. The letter shows a different figure for the same payment. Neither says it corrects the other.

Alex logs the payment on a conflict log row: the statement's figure and page, the letter's figure and page, and Alex's name. Alex adds the conflicting-figures line to the Firm's instructions and runs the drafting pass on the folder.

Alex checks the entry for the payment against the row and the pages it cites, and marks it "Figures differ, open" by hand.

Alex sends Jane the message and logs it. Jane says she doesn't know why the figures differ and has no other copy. Alex quotes her answer on the row and the entry, and marks the entry "Still differ" by hand.

Alex runs the pre-review check and sends the file to Pat. Pat reads the row, the pages and Jane's answer, decides what happens with the entry, and signs off on the whole file.

Where TracePrep fits

We've built a TracePrep plugin that drafts these steps in your Firm's workflow, while your preparer decides and your Reviewer signs off. Join the waitlist and we'll tell you when plugin access opens.

Get on the list for plugin access

This is general information, not tax or legal advice. In TracePrep's workflow, the plugin drafts, the Firm's preparer prepares, and the Firm's Reviewer signs off. Access to the plugin is by waitlist. Keep client data inside the systems your Firm has approved.