Seven scenarios — one card for each status a bank transaction can have. Each card answers three questions: what creates this situation (left), what the user does in the tool (middle), and how it resolves and what still needs to happen in Fusion (right).

The tag at the bottom of each card shows the Phase 2 story — once the matching engine is live, can the system write the result back to Fusion on its own, or does a human still need to act in Fusion first?
System can write result back to Fusion automatically (Phase 2)
Human must act in Fusion first — then system can write back
No write-back needed — Fusion already handled it
Auto-Reconciled
Fusion matched this transaction automatically — no user action required
Informational only. POC surfaces it for audit visibility.
Detection
Fusion's reconciliation engine found an exact reference match before the item reached the manual queue. POC reads the reconciled status from the Fusion export.
Wire / EFTEnd-to-End ID → Payment Ref No. confirmed
CheckCheck No. → Transaction No. confirmed
Direct DebitAuto-Reconciled not applicable — manual journal entries; Fusion cannot auto-match
User journey
1
Sees transaction in list with green Auto-Reconciled badge
2
Clicks row to open read-only panel — verifies matched GL entry, date, amount
3
No action taken — Fusion already completed this reconciliation
Phase 1 outcome
In the transaction list, auto-reconciled items appear with a green "Auto-Reconciled" badge. Clicking any one opens a read-only detail panel — bank statement line on the left, matched GL entry on the right, with a green confirmation: "Auto-reconciled with high confidence by Fusion reconciliation engine. No action required." No reconcile button is shown. The value is spot-check visibility: the cash management team can review any auto-reconciled item in the same interface where they work exceptions, without navigating to a separate view in Fusion.
Fusion
Already reconciled. Nothing to write back.
N/A — Fusion handled it
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
None — Fusion already reconciled before the queue loaded. Phase 1 adds spot-check visibility in the same interface; no separate Fusion navigation required.
Quantify
• How many items auto-reconcile per day? (Denominator for exception rate; Phase 3 training baseline.)
Unmatched
No GL entry found for this bank line
User locates the GL entry manually and confirms the match in the POC
Detection
Fusion's engine could not connect the bank line to any GL entry — typically a reference format inconsistency (leading zeros stripped, whitespace mismatch) or a GL entry that hasn't been posted yet.
Wire / EFTEnd-to-End ID → Payment Ref No.
CheckCheck No. → Transaction No.
Direct DebitEnd-to-End ID → ? unconfirmed
SweepNo single ID — batch balance to $0.00
User journey
1
Sees bank transaction with "no match found" state. POC shows closest GL candidate if one exists — highlighted for review.
2
Verifies the candidate, selects it, and clicks Reconcile. (If no GL entry exists, creates one in Fusion first, then returns.)
3
POC records Manually Reconciled with timestamp, bank line ID, and matched GL entry ID
Phase 1 outcome
Opening an Unmatched transaction shows the reconciliation modal with the alert: "Fusion could not auto-reconcile this transaction. The likely GL candidate is highlighted — verify the identifier matches and the amount is correct, then click Reconcile. If no candidate matches, click Flag for Investigation." The GL candidates table shows the probable match marked with a "✓ match" pill; the key identifier column is highlighted in blue for quick comparison. Once the correct entry is selected and amounts align, the Reconcile button activates. The tool records the confirmed match with a timestamp, the bank line ID, and the GL entry ID. If no GL entry exists, Flag for Investigation holds it in a visible queue until one is created in Fusion.
Fusion
A true Unmatched item means no GL entry exists — Phase 2 cannot write back a match that doesn't exist. The GL entry must be created in Fusion first. Items that appear Unmatched due to reference format issues are caught by the Phase 2 engine before reaching this point — they reconcile as System Match.
Human step required — GL entry must exist in Fusion first
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
Manual GL search in Fusion — hunting for a matching entry without a highlighted candidate. Phase 1 surfaces the likely match and highlights it; user verifies rather than searches.
Quantify
• How many unmatched items land per day?
• How long does a manual GL search take per item today?
System Match
Engine identified a likely match that Fusion could not auto-confirm
Reference format mismatch (leading zero, whitespace) — engine matched on reference after normalization. Phase 1: informational read-only panel. Phase 2: these reconcile automatically.
Detection
Fusion identified a GL candidate with a matching amount and approximate reference, but the reference strings did not match exactly — e.g., a leading zero difference, whitespace, or slight format variation prevented the auto-match from completing.
The matched GL entry is shown in a read-only panel. In Phase 1, the user sees what the engine found — reconciliation itself still happens in Fusion. Phase 2 eliminates the Fusion step.
User journey
1
Sees transaction in list with System Match badge — engine has already identified the likely GL match
2
Clicks to open read-only panel — reviews the matched GL entry and the blue alert naming the specific reference the engine matched on
3
No action taken in the tool — reconciliation still happens in Fusion for Phase 1; Phase 2 eliminates this step entirely
Phase 1 outcome
In Phase 1, System Match is informational only. Clicking the transaction opens a read-only panel — the same layout as Auto-Reconciled — showing the bank entry and the matched GL entry side by side. A blue alert reads: "System match — our engine matched this on reference after normalization. GL entry: [ref]. Phase 2 reconciles these automatically." There is no Reconcile button. The reconciliation still happens in Fusion. The value in Phase 1 is visibility: the engine has already identified the match and named the specific GL entry. In Phase 2, these items disappear from the manual queue entirely — the engine writes the confirmed match to Fusion without any human step.
Fusion
Phase 2: POC writes confirmed match back to Fusion via reconciliation API. Same mechanism as Unmatched — clean 1-to-1 write-back.
Phase 2 — automatable write-back
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
None in Phase 1 — read-only informational panel; reconciliation still done in Fusion. Phase 1 value is visibility only: the engine has already found the match.
Quantify (Phase 2 key metric)
• How many items per day have reference format mismatches that Fusion misses? This is the headline Phase 2 volume figure — these disappear from the manual queue in Phase 2.
Failed Payment
Bank confirms this payment was not processed
RTN code / NSF / stop payment — payment must be re-initiated by AP
Detection
Bank return file includes a return code (RTN) indicating the payment failed. The bank line exists in the file but funds were not transferred.
Wire / EFTBeneficiary bank unreachable; ACH return code
CheckNSF; account closed at receiving bank; stop payment placed
Direct DebitFailed payment scenario unconfirmed for DD — validate with cash management team unconfirmed
User journey
1
Sees Failed Payment alert with failure reason. GL entry is shown — payment was authorized but never cleared the bank.
2
Clicks "Escalate to AP" — flags transaction for AP team to investigate and re-initiate
3
POC marks as Escalated to AP with timestamp. Item moves to AP Escalations filter. Exportable as CSV for email handoff to AP team.
Phase 1 outcome
Opening a Failed Payment item shows the reconciliation modal with a red alert: "Bank return file confirms this payment was not processed." The GL entry that was authorized appears in the candidates table — the payment was initiated but funds never cleared. The primary action is "Escalate to AP": clicking it logs a timestamp, marks the transaction as Escalated, and moves it to the AP Escalations filter. The Reconcile button is present but should not be used until AP re-initiates the payment and a replacement transaction clears the bank. The tool makes the handoff to AP a tracked, visible event rather than a manual notification.
Fusion
AP team re-initiates the payment in Fusion — this is a payments workflow, not a reconciliation action. GL entry may need reversal. Reconciliation follows after the new payment clears the bank.
Human step required — AP re-initiates payment in Fusion
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
Manual AP notification (Teams message or email). Phase 1 makes the handoff a tracked, timestamped escalation visible under the AP Escalations filter — cannot be missed or forgotten.
Quantify
• How many failed payments occur per week?
• Has one ever been missed or caught late — and what was the impact?
Duplicate
Multiple GL entries found with the same reference for one bank line
Possible duplicate GL entry — scenario definition needs cash management team confirmation before finalizing
Detection
POC finds two GL entries matching the same bank reference and amount. One bank line, two GL candidates — suggests the same payment may have been entered twice in the GL.
⚠ Confirm with cash management team: Is this scenario (a) two GL entries for one cleared bank payment, or (b) two bank lines for one GL entry? These have different recommended actions. Current prototype models case (a) — two GL entries, one bank line. If case (b) is the real scenario, the detection logic and recommended action both need to change.
User journey
1
Sees two GL candidates, both matching on reference and amount. Alert warns not to reconcile both.
2
Clicks "Flag for Investigation" — sends to AP/GL team to identify which entry is the duplicate and reverse it
3
POC marks as Flagged for Investigation. Exportable as CSV. After AP resolves, user returns to reconcile the correct GL entry.
Phase 1 outcome
Opening a Duplicate item shows two GL candidates in the table — both matching the same bank reference. The alert reads: "Two GL entries found with the same reference for this bank line. Identify which is the original. Reconcile only the correct entry — flag this transaction for investigation before proceeding." The "Flag for Investigation" button is the recommended first action: it holds the transaction in a visible queue with a timestamp and records that it was flagged for a duplicate. Once the GL team reverses the duplicate entry in Fusion, the user returns and reconciles the correct remaining entry. The tool provides the audit trail: what was flagged, when, and what both candidates looked like.
Fusion
AP/GL team reverses the duplicate GL entry in Fusion. User then returns to the POC and reconciles the correct entry. GL reversal cannot be automated through the reconciliation API.
Human step required — GL reversal in Fusion first
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
Manual tracking of the duplicate flag — likely a mental note, email, or sticky. Phase 1 provides a structured flag with timestamp, both GL candidates visible, held under a dedicated filter until the GL team resolves.
Quantify
• How many duplicates occur per week?
• How are these tracked today between flagging and GL team resolution?
Amount Variance
Bank amount does not match GL amount
Applies to FX wires (code 514) only — currency conversion creates an expected difference that requires a journal entry before reconciliation
Detection
Bank amount (foreign currency) differs from GL amount (USD equivalent). Expected for FX wires — the conversion rate at bank settlement differs from the rate booked in the GL.
Wire 514Amount variance expected — journal entry required at month end
Wire 495Amount Variance removed — USD amounts must match exactly
EFT / CheckAmount Variance removed — amounts must match exactly
Direct DebitAmount Variance scenario unconfirmed unconfirmed
User journey
1
Sees FX wire with amber alert — bank amount shown in foreign currency, GL amount in USD. Difference is flagged as expected due to FX conversion.
2
Creates a manual journal entry in Fusion to record the FX conversion (done outside the POC at month end)
3
Returns to POC, selects updated GL entry, clicks Reconcile. POC records Manually Reconciled.
Phase 1 outcome
The tool holds the transaction in an Amount Variance state — a clear flag that the FX conversion journal entry hasn't been created yet and reconciliation cannot complete. When the user creates the journal entry in Fusion at month-end (a separate step outside the tool), they return, select the updated GL entry, and reconcile. The tool records the final match with a timestamp and both IDs. Nothing falls through the cracks between the bank statement date and month-end close.
Fusion
Journal entry must be created in Fusion first (manual, month-end step). Once created, Phase 2 can write the reconciliation match back via API. Journal entry creation itself is not automatable through the reconciliation API.
Human step first — journal entry required in Fusion
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
Manual reminder or tracking for the month-end FX journal entry. Phase 1 holds FX wires in a visible state between the bank date and month-end close — nothing falls through between sessions.
Quantify
• How many FX wires (code 514) land per month?
• Has an FX wire ever missed month-end close because it wasn't tracked?
Sweep (ZBA Batch)
Multiple bank entries matched to multiple journal entries — must balance to $0.00
Transaction codes: 275 (standard sweep) · 575 (negative — handling unconfirmed)
Detection
No single identifier links bank to GL. Multiple ZBA sweep entries on both sides must sum to the same total. Reconciliation completes when the running difference = $0.00.
Code 575 entries (negative amounts) are excluded from the default batch selection and shown as inactive. Their handling has not been confirmed with the cash management team.
Open: What does code 575 mean, and are those entries reconciled separately or skipped entirely?
User journey
1
Opens sweep batch view — two panels showing bank entries (left) and journal entries (right) with running totals. Code 575 entries shown but inactive.
2
Selects entries on both sides until the difference reaches exactly $0.00, then clicks Reconcile
3
All selected entries marked Manually Reconciled simultaneously with timestamp and batch IDs
Phase 1 outcome
When the running totals on both sides reach exactly $0.00, the Reconcile button activates and the user clicks once. The tool simultaneously closes all selected bank entries and journal entries as Manually Reconciled, records the batch as a single event with a timestamp, and removes them from the open queue. The $0.00 balance is the confirmation — if the two sides don't balance, the batch isn't complete and the button stays locked.
Fusion
Phase 2: POC writes all matched pairs back to Fusion as a batch operation. More complex than 1-to-1 write-back but same API mechanism — multiple bank line IDs paired with multiple GL entry IDs.
Phase 2 — batch write-back (more complex than 1-to-1)
Phase 1 value case — confirm with cash management team
Steps this replaces
Manual summation of bank and journal entries to verify $0.00 balance. Phase 1 calculates running totals automatically and locks the Reconcile button until the balance is exact — no mental arithmetic required.
Quantify
• How many entries are in a typical daily sweep batch?
• How long does the manual balance verification take today?

Each feature in this prototype traces directly to something said in discovery. No invented problems, no assumed workflows. Direct quotes from three sessions (April 27–30 2026) are mapped to the prototype capabilities built in response.

Pain points · quotes · prototype response
Pain Point Direct Quotes What We Built
1
Payment failures went undetected — suppliers called before the team knew
When Fusion's bank file was loaded but reconciliation lagged, failed payments were invisible. The only signal was a vendor calling to ask where their money was — days after the payment had already failed.
We weren't reconciling as probably quickly as we should have. And so you could think you made a payment to a supplier because the payment looks like it left Fusion. A week could go by and if you haven't done the bank reconciliation to learn, oh, well actually the payment didn't go out. Now the supplier's unhappy. They're like, where's our money? We've got to go back.
Bobby Fanelli · Apr 28 2026
I run an exception file for the disbursement account through JP Morgan... I'll get an exceptions report. And a lot of times it's usually a day or two later. So it's not as on time, I guess.
Allison Lopez · Apr 27 2026
In prototype built
Failed Payment badge surfaces these immediately in the main queue. This is the core Phase 1 premise — exceptions surface the moment the bank file is loaded. The team doesn't discover a problem by working through a queue; it surfaces immediately. No more relying on a vendor call or a day-late exceptions report to know a payment failed.
2
Escalation tracking lives in email, not in the tool
When something gets sent to AP, the only record is in a sent folder. Following up means hunting through old email threads to reconstruct what was asked and when.
I go back and I'm like, oh yeah, what happened with this item? And then I go in my emails and find wherever like I last talked about it and see if I can pick up the thread.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
If I have a bank item that I'm questioning, I will take a screenshot of the bank statement or the screen in Fusion... and send that over to the AP help desk, usually copying Emmy and another person.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
"Sent to AP" flag on each transaction. Set from inside the reconciliation modal after she's decided to escalate. Records the date she sent it (required — calendar picker). The transaction stays marked until she closes it out — no more reconstructing from email.
3
No single view of what's waiting on AP
There's no way to filter to only the items pending AP response. Escalations go into what she called "the void."
It's usually just send it into the void of AP and wait and see if they ever come back with an answer.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
I do everything that I can. And then when I have a day where I don't have much going on and I start looking into the statement again, I go back and I'm like, oh yeah, what happened with this item? And then I go in my emails and find wherever like I last talked about it and see if I can pick up the thread of, hey, is there an update on this yet? And then wait again.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
"Sent to AP" filter in the transaction list. One click to see every open escalation with her notes attached. No scrolling, no email hunting.

CSV export of filtered view — date, type, amount, description, notes, sent date — for AP manager meetings.
4
Items sent to AP sit unanswered for months — no way to surface them
With no persistent tracking, escalated items can disappear into the AP inbox indefinitely. There are 12 wires with non-standard reference IDs that have been open since July 2025 — sent to AP, never resolved.
From July till now, I've got like 12 wires that have different bank reference IDs — the end-to-end ID — than what the normal wires have, so I don't know what they are and I can't find them in the system transactions, so I send that to AP... they're still out here because I probably haven't heard anything back from AP about what they are.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
I follow up with AP so much and I feel like I never get an answer. So I don't feel like I have a lot of examples of what they've come back with because it's usually just send it into the void of AP and wait.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
"Sent to AP" and "Watching" states persist until explicitly closed. The date picker records when she sent — aging becomes visible at a glance. The filter makes every open item reviewable in one view. Nothing can fall through if it's been assigned a state.
5
Context disappears between seeing an item and acting on it
When a transaction needs investigation, there's nowhere to capture what she knows in the moment. By the time she comes back — or is ready to email AP — the context is gone.
If it's something that's requiring more investigation, like on my side, whether that's looking into things here or reaching out to AP, having that notes column would be real helpful... put some notes in and then you haven't yet emailed AP and so you want to be able to like come back maybe and then craft your email.
Allison Lopez · Apr 30 2026
A comment of like flagging something, even if it's just me knowing like, I've sent this item for investigation or I've looked into this and I can't figure it out or whatever. That would be really helpful.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
Per-transaction notes field inside the reconciliation modal. Free-text, saves to the transaction. Available whether she's about to email AP, mid-investigation, or leaving herself a breadcrumb.
6
No way to deliberately hold an item she's watching
Sometimes she recognizes an item and knows it will likely resolve itself — a timing issue, an expected journal arriving soon. She needs to flag it without escalating and come back when ready.
Sometimes it's just a timing thing and I know, oh, I know what this is. Something's probably coming. I'm going to hold this.
Allison Lopez · Apr 30 2026
I do everything that I can. And then when I have a day where I don't have much going on and I start looking into the statement again, I go back and I'm like, oh yeah, what happened with this item?
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
"Watching" state — a deliberate hold flag, separate from "Sent to AP." She's not waiting on anyone; she's watching. Paired with the notes field. Can transition to "Sent to AP" or close directly to reconciled — no dead end.
7
Fusion collapses data — key fields require opening each transaction
Fusion's row view doesn't show enough to identify a transaction's type or routing. She maintains a parallel Excel file specifically to see fields Fusion hides by default.
It's also just faster for me to have two screens open basically and be able to see everything on here and I can just expand my files and see all the columns that I need without having to open each transaction to be like, I can see this is a credit card, but which credit card? And then to open it, wait for it to load, find the name, close it.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
Being able to see that Remarks 9 column confirms that it's a direct debit and tells me which credit card that belongs to. So then I know what next steps are needed.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
Reconciliation modal surfaces key fields directly — Remarks 9, transaction type, counterparty, and matching identifier visible without navigating Fusion. Human-readable type labels replace raw codes. No parallel Excel needed to identify what a transaction is.
8
A custom Excel workaround fills the gaps Fusion leaves — and gets maintained every day
Because Fusion's transaction codes are opaque and the import can't be verified, the team built and maintains a private Excel file with formulas that translate codes into human-readable types, categorize transactions, and run a sanity check that the bank file loaded completely. It's a daily parallel system that exists to fill Fusion's gaps.
I still pull up the bank statement and I pop it into my Excel. I have a formula that identifies the type of transaction that it is. So between EFT check, a return, the cash sweeps, wires, all that kind of stuff, it automatically does that with a formula. That just helps me visualize it because that's how I did it for so long.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
The way that they're named in Fusion, it's a much more rigid system. I can't decide what that transaction name is. Having three different electric funds transfers, transaction code names, doesn't necessarily tell me that that's an EFT versus a wire.
Allison Lopez · Apr 28 2026
In prototype built
Human-readable transaction type labels replace Fusion's raw codes — "Wire," "EFT," "Direct Debit," "Check," "Sweep." The reconciliation modal surfaces type, remarks, and key fields without any translation step. Her Excel file was a workaround for information that should be visible in the tool.
Built — live in the prototype today
In progress — designed, being built
All quotes · Allison Lopez & Bobby Fanelli · Apr 27–30 2026