…to avoid the risk of closing month-end in your SAP® RE-FX.

After the posting run concludes, I wait – not for errors but to gauge the number.  A handful of contracts consistently fail to post correctly.  I’ve given up on fixing the root cause and instead maintain a personal list.  When the accounts team inquires about the lease liability on building 4 shifting by tens of thousands, I spend two hours tracing it. Sometimes I find the reason and sometimes I simply say “I’ll monitor it next month.”  Next month, it’s a different building.

Another type of problem arises from events unrelated to the system itself.  These include unvalidated migrations, poorly executed reorganisations that transferred contracts to a new company code and regulatory changes implemented under pressure without proper review.  These aren’t bugs but rather residues – small inconsistencies that quietly accumulate until a discrepancy is noticed.

The lease liability fluctuates by a few hundred euros from month to month. I have never been able to verify whether this is normal under IFRS 16 — for example interest unwinding, FX effects, or rounding from the net present value recalculation — or whether something in the configuration has drifted unnoticed.

At some point I received an SAP note reference from a forum contributor. We implemented it. The fluctuations continued. I left it at that.

Several configuration elements pre-date my tenure. They have never been touched. They seem to work.

One custom condition type, “Z_REFX_C_something”, was set up during the original implementation. It posts to a dedicated account each month. The account clears in reconciliation. I have never investigated what it actually does. To be honest, I have been reluctant to.

When the auditors ask whether the figure is complete and accurate, I say “yes”. I say it with conviction.

But the question I cannot answer is a different one: I can confirm that the figure is produced the same way it was last year. I cannot confirm that this consistency equals accuracy.

IFRS 16 was implemented properly. External consultants configured the valuation rules, ran the transition, posted the opening balance. UAT passed. The auditor signed off the first year-end. The numbers landed in the group reporting. That was the moment the system became mine.

Then things started to drift. Error messages I had never seen before. Postings that ran clean for three years suddenly throwing AA594. A contract modification that should have been routine producing depreciation differences nobody can explain. I run the monthly valuation, I post the entries, I file the disclosure — but more and more of my time goes into working around things that used to just work. I cannot reconstruct why a specific condition type maps to a specific account. I cannot explain why the lease liability moves the way it does between periods. The consultants left documentation that describes what was built — not why, and not whether it still fits today.

Every quarter the auditor asks whether the figure is complete and accurate. I say yes. I say it with conviction. What I can actually confirm is narrower: the figure is produced the same way it was last quarter — minus a few workarounds I have added along the way. Whether that is the same as accurate — I do not know. Admitting that would mean opening a door I cannot close again. So as long as the numbers do not look obviously absurd, they are good enough.