Lesson 5 of 5
Sign-off
10 min
When Dan signs the AP and AR stream, he is saying that Contoso can pay its suppliers and collect from its customers correctly from day one, and that what is not yet perfect is known and accepted. His signature needs evidence he can read without re-running the tests, and a written record of every risk he is accepting.
The evidence pack
An AP and AR evidence pack is organized by scenario, not by transaction. For each scenario, it shows the expected result written beforehand, the actual result and the documents that prove it.
The open item proof deserves its own step. In FBL1N and FBL5N, or the Manage Supplier Line Items and Manage Customer Line Items apps, show the test supplier and customer accounts with cleared items included. A reviewer can see in one screen which items cleared, by which clearing document and on which date. That is stronger evidence than a series of success messages.
| Evidence item | AP (Lakeside Components) | AR (Great Lakes Fleet Services) |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario list | Discount taken and missed, partial, blocked, credit memo, CAD invoice | Discount, short payment, residual item, credit memo, dunning levels |
| Run outputs | Proposal, exception list, payment list, payment file and bank test acknowledgement | Dunning proposal, sample notices, dunning history |
| Line items | Supplier account with cleared items shown | Customer account with cleared, residual and disputed items shown |
| Journal entries | Discount, tax, exchange gain or loss lines | Discount, tax, short payment, exchange difference lines |
| Controls | Bank detail change approval tested; payment run release by a second person | Dunning block and dispute handling per policy |
What Dan expects to see before signing.
Controls are part of the scope
AP is a classic fraud target. The two controls auditors ask about first are changes to supplier bank details and release of payment runs. If Contoso has activated dual control for sensitive fields on the business partner, a change to Lakeside's bank account should wait for a second person's confirmation before the supplier can be paid. If the project uses SAP Bank Communication Management, payment batches go through an approval step before they are sent. Test both: try to pay a supplier immediately after changing its bank details, and try to release a batch with the same user who created it. Both attempts should be stopped.
Accepted risks
Few releases go live with zero open defects. The difference between a professional sign-off and a hopeful one is that every open item is written down with its impact, a workaround, an owner and a date. Dan accepts each one by name.
| Field | Example |
|---|---|
| Defect or gap | Payment advice email shows supplier invoice reference truncated to 16 characters |
| Impact | Lakeside's AP clerk needs a phone call to match two invoices per month |
| Workaround | AP team sends a manual remittance list for affected suppliers |
| Owner and due date | Finance IT lead; fix in the first post-go-live release |
| Accepted by | Dan, finance process owner, with date |
An accepted-risk entry. Sev 1 and sev 2 defects should not appear here.
- Have all high-impact scenarios passed with evidence?Yes → next question · No → no-go until they pass or are formally de-scoped
- Has the payment file been accepted by the bank's test service?Yes → next question · No → no-go for electronic payments
- Do bank detail and payment release controls work?Yes → next question · No → no-go; this is an audit finding
- Is every open defect low severity, with workaround, owner and date, and accepted by Dan?Yes → sign · No → resolve or escalate to Grace's steering meeting
- Week −6Scenario sets completeAll AP and AR scenarios executed in QAS client 100 with evidence
- Week −5Bank file testPayment file submitted to the bank's test service; acknowledgement filed
- Week −4Defect triageOpen defects ranked; workarounds written; accepted-risk entries drafted
- Week −3Stream sign-offDan signs AP and AR with the evidence pack and accepted risks
- CutoverOpen items migratedLuis's cutover reconciles migrated open items to the legacy balances
What would you do?
Two days before the stream sign-off, the bank's test service rejects Contoso's payment file because of a header field. Everything else has passed. Grace asks whether Dan can sign anyway. What is the most responsible answer?
- Organize the evidence pack by scenario: expected result, actual result, document numbers.
- Show open item lists with cleared items, run outputs and journal entries for discounts, tax and exchange differences.
- Test controls: bank detail changes and payment release by a second person.
- Write every accepted risk with impact, workaround, owner, date and the owner's acceptance.
- Sign-off can be partial; say exactly what is and is not signed.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. Which evidence best shows a reviewer that test items were cleared correctly?
2. Which two AP controls do auditors usually ask about first?
3. What must every accepted-risk entry include?
4. What should Dan do if a random sample from the pack does not match its documented result?