CORDINZA / Hotel revenue-to-cash control

Inspect the investigation behind the report.

Start with the settlement example to see the proposed first-review approach. The two accounting cases illustrate potential separately scoped work. All three cases use fictional data; this is not a live product demonstration.

Illustrative workspace / fictional data / USD

Three differences, three investigations

Demonstration Hotel · Example period 1–7 October 2026. No customer data or realised results are shown.

Settlement shortfall Duplicate refund record Accounting posting gap

Settlement shortfall

A bank receipt is below the expected net settlement.

Open · $100 requiring review

Record	Amount	Illustrative reference
Card payments	$10,000	PMS-101
Processing fees	−$300	PROC-077
Documented refund	−$200	REF-021
Expected settlement	$9,500	$10,000 − $300 − $200
Bank receipt	$9,400	BANK-044
Unexplained difference	$100	EX-001

Next action

Finance contact requests the processor adjustment record. The difference stays open pending evidence.

Closure requirement

Confirm a matching receipt or document a supported explanation accepted by the owner.

Duplicate refund record

The same refund reference appears twice in the accounting export.

Proposed correction · $200 requiring review

Record	Amount	Illustrative reference
Processor refund	$200	REF-021
Accounting entry one	$200	JRN-310 / REF-021
Accounting entry two	$200	JRN-311 / REF-021
Potential duplicate	$200	EX-002

Next action

Check whether the second entry is a duplicate or a separate transaction. Prepare a correction only after the supporting records establish the cause.

Closure requirement

The authorised customer approver executes any correction. Verify the revised balance. A corrected duplicate is not a cash recovery.

Accounting posting gap

A payment appears in the operational export but has no identified accounting match.

Awaiting source check · $150 requiring review

Record	Amount	Illustrative reference
Operational payment	$150	PAY-089
Accounting match	Not identified	Period under review
Item requiring review	$150	EX-003

Next action

Check posting cut-off, the integration queue, account mapping and subsequent periods before concluding an entry is missing.

Closure requirement

Identify the existing match or verify an authorised posting. Do not classify a timing gap as lost revenue.

All records are fictional. The cases are separate illustrations; amounts should not be added together as recovered cash or a reconciled portfolio balance.

What the owner review should contain

Coverage: the properties, sources and periods reviewed, including missing data.
Explained differences with references to the supporting records.
Verified corrections, reported separately from cash receipts.
Open exceptions, age, responsible person and next action.
Confirmed recoveries only where receipt evidence supports them.

Measure value without overstating it

Agree the baseline and staff-time assumptions before a review. Separate one-off recoveries from recurring improvements, and distinguish an explanation or record correction from money received.

See the first-review deliverables Assess your setup