A bank reconciliation review checklist tells the reviewer what to prove before signing: that both balances agree to the bank statement and the general ledger, that every reconciling item is real and current, that the math works, and that the preparer finished on time. Anything that fails those tests goes back to the preparer before sign-off.
What is a bank reconciliation reviewer actually approving?
A bank reconciliation reviewer approves three claims: the cash balance in the ledger is supported by the bank, every difference between the two is explained by a real item, and nothing unusual passed through the account without someone asking about it. The reviewer does not vouch for every transaction in the month.
That distinction shapes the whole review. The preparer did the matching. The reviewer's job is to test whether the matching can be trusted, which means looking at the parts of a reconciliation where errors and concealment tend to sit: the opening and closing figures, the list of reconciling items, and the adjustments booked to make the two sides agree.
A signature also carries a date, and the date matters. A review signed three months after the statement arrived is evidence that the control ran late, even if the work itself is correct.
Finally, the reviewer is approving that the preparer is not the only person who knows what is in the account. If the reviewer cannot explain a reconciling item after reading the support, the reconciliation is not ready, no matter how neatly it balances.
Tying the reconciliation's bank and book balances to source
The bank balance on the reconciliation must match the ending balance printed on the bank statement for the same date, and the book balance must match the general ledger cash account as of that date. The reviewer checks both against the source document, not against a copy typed into a spreadsheet.
The bank side
Open the statement itself, the PDF from the bank or the bank's online portal, and find the closing balance. Compare it digit by digit with the figure on the reconciliation. Then check the statement period: the reconciliation for March should use a statement that ends on March 31, or on the bank's cycle date if the account runs on a different cycle.
Check that the statement belongs to the right account. Companies with several accounts at one bank sometimes reconcile the wrong one, and the account number on the statement header is the fastest way to catch that. While the statement is open, scan it for anything that would look odd to an outsider, such as round-dollar transfers to unfamiliar accounts or a large debit with a vague description. The statement is the strongest evidence in the file because it comes from a third party, a point covered in more depth in why bank statements count as audit evidence.
The book side
Run a general ledger report for the cash account at the statement date and compare its ending balance with the book figure on the reconciliation. If the ledger shows a different balance today than it did when the preparer worked, someone posted to a closed period. Ask who and why. A backdated entry after reconciliation is one of the quieter ways a difference gets hidden.
Opening figures
Last month's reconciled ending balances should equal this month's opening balances on both sides. A break in that chain means either last month's reconciliation was changed after sign-off or this month's starts from a figure nobody checked.
Testing reconciling items on the reconciliation under review
Reconciling items are the entries that explain why the bank and the books disagree at the statement date: outstanding checks, deposits in transit, bank charges not yet booked, and errors on either side. The reviewer tests each category for existence, age and size, and pays most attention to anything old, round or unexplained.
Outstanding checks
An outstanding check is one the company wrote and recorded but the bank has not yet paid. Compare the list with the check register for numbers and amounts. Then look at the dates. A check written in the last week of the month is normal. A check that has been outstanding for six months is not, and it needs a reason: the payee lost it, it should be voided, or it belongs in unclaimed property review.
If the company uses positive pay, the bank compares each presented check against the issued-check file the company sends. A reviewer can use that same file to confirm that every outstanding check was actually issued. The guide to positive pay and the issued-check file explains how that file is built.
Deposits in transit
A deposit in transit is money recorded in the books but not yet credited by the bank. Real deposits in transit clear within a few business days. Pull the next month's statement, or the bank's current activity, and confirm the deposit landed. A deposit in transit that never clears is a classic sign that a receipt was recorded but the cash went somewhere else.
Bank-side items and adjustments
Fees, interest, returned checks and electronic debits that the bank posted but the books have not recorded should appear as book-side adjustments, with a journal entry to follow. Read each one. A recurring debit from a vendor nobody recognizes deserves a question, and if the company blocks unauthorized electronic debits, the reviewer should ask why one got through. How an ACH debit block differs from a debit filter is useful background for that question.
Any line labelled "unreconciled difference", "misc" or "adjustment" with no support is a stop. A reconciliation that only balances because of an unexplained plug has not been reconciled.
The arithmetic
Recompute the reconciliation from top to bottom. Bank balance, plus deposits in transit, less outstanding checks, plus or minus bank-side errors, should equal the book balance after its own adjustments. Spreadsheet formulas break when someone inserts a row, so recalculating a total by hand is not wasted effort.
Reconciliation review dates, signatures and timeliness
The dates and initials on a reconciliation show who prepared it, who reviewed it and when each step happened. A complete sign-off has two different names, two dates, and a review date after the preparation date. A reconciliation the reviewer also prepared has no independent review at all.
What the dates should show
Most teams set a deadline, such as ten business days after the statement date. Whatever the target, the reviewer should check the preparation date against it and note the gap if it was missed. Timeliness is not a formality. Under UCC section 4-406 on a customer's duty to examine bank statements, a customer must examine statements with reasonable promptness, and a customer who does not report an unauthorized signature or alteration within one year of the statement being made available loses the right to assert it against the bank. A reconciliation that runs months behind is a reconciliation that may find a forgery after the window to recover it has closed.
What the signatures should show
Initials alone say very little. A stronger sign-off records what the reviewer looked at, for example "agreed bank balance to statement, traced three deposits in transit to April statement, questioned check 4471". That note turns a signature into evidence that someone actually checked.
Electronic sign-off
When reconciliations live in accounting software, the system often stamps the user and time. Confirm that the stamp shows the reviewer's own login. Shared logins make the stamp meaningless, because it cannot show which person clicked approve.
The checklist itself
The table below is an example checklist. The pass conditions are illustrations, and each team should set its own thresholds.
| Step | What to look at | Example pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bank balance against the statement PDF | Agrees to the cent, same account and period |
| 2 | Book balance against the ledger report | Agrees, and no posts to the closed period since preparation |
| 3 | Opening balances against last month | Equal to last month's reconciled ending balances |
| 4 | Outstanding check list | All in the register, none older than 90 days without a note |
| 5 | Deposits in transit | Each cleared within five business days of month end |
| 6 | Bank-side items | Each has a journal entry or a dated plan to book one |
| 7 | Unexplained differences | None |
| 8 | Arithmetic | Recomputed by the reviewer, agrees |
| 9 | Unusual statement activity | Large, round or unfamiliar items asked about |
| 10 | Dates and names | Two people, review after preparation, inside the deadline |
Which reconciliation review findings send it back to the preparer?
A reconciliation goes back when the reviewer cannot sign without accepting something unproven: a balance that does not agree to source, an unexplained difference, an old reconciling item with no explanation, or arithmetic that fails. Smaller issues, such as a missing note on a correct item, can be fixed with a comment while the review still closes.
Send it back
- The bank balance or book balance does not match its source.
- There is an unsupported plug or a line called "difference".
- A deposit in transit did not clear in the following period.
- An outstanding check is old and nobody has asked the payee about it.
- The reconciliation reuses last month's list without updating it, which shows up when the same items appear with identical amounts month after month.
- The preparer and reviewer are the same person.
Note it and sign
- A correct item lacks a short description.
- The journal entry for a bank fee is drafted but not yet posted, and it is small.
- The reconciliation was a few days late for a known reason, such as a delayed statement.
Write the reason down
When a reconciliation goes back, write the reason on the file. A pattern of returns for the same issue tells a manager more about the process than any single month does. It also protects the reviewer: if a problem later surfaces, the file shows it was raised.
When a reviewer checklist cannot replace re-performing the reconciliation
A checklist works when the reviewer trusts the preparer's process and only needs to test it. It stops working when that trust is gone: a new preparer, a long gap, a fraud concern, or a balance that has drifted for months. Then the reviewer should redo the reconciliation from the statements instead of reviewing it.
Signs that a review is not enough
- The reconciliation has not been done for several months and is now being caught up in one sitting.
- Reconciling items have grown each month without clearing.
- The person who prepares the reconciliation can also sign checks or release payments, so the preparer could both take cash and hide it.
- The reviewer has already found one unexplained difference and the preparer's answer did not hold up.
What re-performing looks like
Re-performing means starting from the bank statement and the ledger and building the reconciliation without looking at the preparer's version first. Then compare the two. Differences point to exactly where the original went wrong. For a backlog of months, software that reads the statements, checks that each one foots from opening to closing balance, and matches lines to the ledger can do the mechanical part quickly. PreciseBankFlow is built for that kind of check, and it lists each unmatched line and gap as an exception for the reviewer to decide on.
Keeping the two roles apart
Even when a reviewer redoes the work, the review should still have a second person look at the result. Re-performing a reconciliation turns the reviewer into a preparer for that month, and the same separation rules apply to them.