Reconcile recurring management reports Get the source data and prepare the review Documentation-checked proposed route; source collection and human approval required WHAT WAS CHECKED Official documentation checked; all routes are proposed and have not been run in a product account. No client data, account access, installs or account writes used. Native column names are distinguished from editorial kit contracts. Missing source evidence blocks completeness claims. BEFORE YOU START - Named Clio Manage reports and access to each actual report; an accountant-approved metric definition for each comparison. - Agreed period, date basis, timezone, currency, inclusion rules and duplicate keys. - Firm-approved Excel; optional Copilot entitlement and tenant approval for the exact minimized data. Native Excel analysis can be done manually if Copilot is absent. - Keep raw exports and identifying source pointers in a separate restricted location. The AI workbook contains only approved alias-based tables and visible policy/scope text, never raw client records on another tab. DATA ACQUISITION LIMITS - Clio warns that reports use distinct criteria; unlike reports cannot be assumed to reconcile. Activity, invoice and collection dates are different facts. - A universal report-rows.csv export does not exist here. The workflow maps only verified fields from each named report; unavailable dates/IDs remain unknown. DECLARED INPUT CONTRACT report-rows.csv: source_report, source_row_id, record_id, metric, activity_date, invoice_date, collection_date, amount, currency source-controls.csv: source_report, generated_at, filters, period_start, period_end, date_basis, timezone, currency, control_row_count, control_total metric-definitions.csv: metric, approved_definition, date_basis, inclusion_rule, duplicate_key, approver_ref STEP 1: Generate each named source report separately Tool: Clio Manage Open: Reports > Classic reports > Reports > category > actual report name > Output format CSV > Generate report Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested. Have the report owner identify the exact reports being compared and their business question. Generate each with its own documented filters. For an invoice-state comparison, use Accounts receivable and Billing history, retaining their different inclusion rules. Record source report name, generated time, filters, period/date basis, timezone, currency and native control total/count. Expected output: Separate native CSV files and a control record for each source. Use it next: Preserve originals and their headers; only then build the editorial comparison tables. Check: Do not assume the two reports must have equal totals or select a common date field merely to make them agree. Documentation limit: Official sources support named product features. Workflow-specific prompts, alias fields, mappings and reviewer rules are editorial adaptations, not native export promises. Source documentation: https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/9290078155803-Clio-Manage-Reports-Presets-and-History https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/14330519112987-Clio-Manage-Billing-Reports STEP 2: Map the observed records to the starter input Tool: Excel and authorized staff Open: Separate analysis workbook > Home > Format as Table Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested. In report-rows.csv preserve source_report,source_row_id and actual record_id where available. Map only verified metric,activity_date,invoice_date,collection_date,amount,currency; do not substitute one date for another. Keep subtotal/control rows out of transaction rows but record them in source-controls.csv. Enter all source-controls and approved metric-definitions.csv fields from the report owner, including inclusion_rule,duplicate_key and approver_ref. Put scope and exclusions in a visible Scope sheet. Create named tables for ReportRows, SourceControls and MetricDefinitions. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt. Expected output: ReportRows, SourceControls and MetricDefinitions; provenance retained per row. Use it next: Check the mapping against each original source before using AI. Check: Aliases and missing policy fields are staff-created; do not relabel a native export as the kit schema. Unknown stays blank/unknown, not false or zero. Documentation limit: Official sources support named product features. Workflow-specific prompts, alias fields, mappings and reviewer rules are editorial adaptations, not native export promises. Source documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/tutorial-import-data-into-excel-and-create-a-data-model STEP 3: Review the bounded evidence with Copilot Tool: Excel Copilot, optional Open: Approved analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested. Use Chat only and submit the prompt. Without Copilot: check scope compatibility first, then compare exact approved keys and totals with ordinary worksheet sums. PASTE THIS PROMPT First test whether SourceControls and MetricDefinitions make each proposed comparison compatible in date basis, period, currency, inclusion and granularity. If not, return not_comparable and the exact differences. For compatible metrics only, compare row counts, control totals, missing IDs and duplicate keys, citing source_report/source_row_id. Never force unlike report totals to agree, fill absent date fields or invent accounting adjustments. Separate explained scope differences from unexplained exceptions. Expected output: Comparability verdict followed by bounded reconciliation exceptions. Use it next: Copy the draft exception list to the reviewer; retain row references. Check: Check every flagged row and the scope. A fluent answer is not evidence of completeness; no automatic workbook or source-system edits. Documentation limit: Official sources support named product features. Workflow-specific prompts, alias fields, mappings and reviewer rules are editorial adaptations, not native export promises. Source documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/get-started-with-copilot-in-excel https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/frequently-asked-questions-about-copilot-in-excel STEP 4: Approve the review result Tool: Responsible staff reviewer Open: Reviewed local worksheet Access needed: See prerequisites; actual subscription, tenant configuration and permissions are untested. The report owner/accountant validates definitions and every unexplained exception against original bills/activity/payment records. Approve the comparison or document why it cannot be made. Expected output: Reviewed report bridge or explicit not-comparable finding. Use it next: Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process. Check: No workbook cleanup should erase raw rows or manufacture balancing entries. Documentation limit: Editorial human-review gate; linked Excel documentation supports the worksheet used, not legal or accounting conclusions. Source documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/tutorial-import-data-into-excel-and-create-a-data-model ACCOUNT AND SOURCE CHECKS STILL NEEDED - Actual account access, plan and source-data completeness have not been tested. USING THE FILES IN THIS KIT Use the exact files or source text named in the steps above. Native exports keep their own headers. The kit tables are editorial review worksheets; they are not a claim that a product exports those fields. Some routes use reviewed text directly or require additional original files. Never rename an unreviewed raw export to make it appear mapped. Keep expected-result files separate from inputs. The source account, actual data, prompts and end-to-end workflow were not tested. Any final communication, filing, permission change, payment or publication needs its own authorized human action. This guide performs none.