Illustrative multi-company platform

Scenario premise

The hypothetical situation tested by the example.

• The same supplier and item have different local identifiers with no governed group key.
• The selling and buying companies record different dates, quantities, currency values, and intercompany references.
• The shared-service charge reaches one company without an agreed allocation reference or matching owner.
• A common template decision is proposed before required entity variation is separated from historical duplication.

Inspectable artifact

What the inspectable artifact contains.

• Completed four-entity fact sheet with placeholder ownership, currency, calendar, systems, and close dependencies
• Worked supplier, item, company, account, and intercompany-reference mapping with sample source records
• Step-by-step intercompany inventory and shared-service-charge scenario through matching and elimination
• Completed template-variation decision log with shared, configurable, local, and unresolved examples
• Example company-wave scorecard with entry evidence, acceptance checks, open exceptions, and rollback conditions

How to use it

How to review the model and challenge its assumptions.

1. Read the entity fact sheet and mark which assumptions would need finance, tax, legal, data, or operating confirmation.
2. Trace the sample records from local identifiers to group identifiers and identify every owner and transformation.
3. Walk the two transactions from origin through counterparty matching, settlement status, close, and elimination.
4. Use the variation log to compare a mandatory group rule, a configurable choice, a justified local step, and an unresolved case.
5. Apply the wave scorecard to one example company and record whether evidence supports proceed, proceed with conditions, or hold.

Open assumptions

What remains a real-scope decision.

• Who creates and approves the group supplier, item, account, company, and counterparty identifiers?
• Which transaction attributes must match before settlement or elimination, and who resolves each exception?
• Which variation belongs in the group template, company configuration, local integration, or open-decision register?
• Does the example company's evidence support proceed, conditional proceed, or hold at the wave gate?

Evidence required

Evidence required before turning the example into a plan.

• Sample master records mapped to a group key with owner, source, and approval status
• Scenario transactions matched by counterparty, amount, currency, date, and reference under the stated placeholder rules
• Open intercompany differences by amount, age, owner, and disposition before the example close gate
• Wave checks passed, conditional, or held, with missing evidence and decision owner recorded

Limits of the example

Limits that prevent reading the example as client work.

• Placeholder accounting, tax, or entity treatment may be reused without qualified confirmation.
• Matching sample totals may hide incompatible local definitions or incomplete transaction lineage.
• A local exception may be copied into the shared template before its reason and expiry are understood.
• A worked four-entity example cannot establish platform fit, migration effort, or rollout performance for another group.

Decision questions

Read the evidence within its stated limits.