Two systems, one month-end, matched exactly.
The old system kept producing the month-end report while the new one took over. Both had to agree.
Sample data, not a client record
See it working
Open the sample health-check reportInteractive. Mock data, not client findings.
Why the month-end was hard
In February 2026 operations moved to the new system. The old system still had to produce a month-end report, and it had to tally with the new one.
Sample data, not a client record
Across the month boundary
Collections in one month were consumed by shipments in the next, so both systems had to agree across the month boundary.
Sample data, not a client record
Names could not be trusted
About 13 % of name matches were wrong on sites that belong to a chain.
Five decisions we owned
Anchored to the old system’s January closing.
Matched only on an exact place identifier; otherwise a new record.
Every migrated row was tagged: traceable and reversible.
Month-ends stopped at the last real month, never regenerated.
Our rule: never fabricate a figure to make a balance close.
How completion was checked
The month-end report was generated on both systems and compared entry for entry. A daily-distribution check proved no record had been invented.
Sample data, not a client record
Record of past work measured figures
Migration scope, one past project
- entities
- 45+
- reports
- 60+
- master records
- 1,000+
Reply if any question.
If your month-end has to agree across two systems, write and say what the two systems are.
Email your requirementsA written reply within two working days.