Subledger and General Ledger
A subledger or source module explains the operational detail of a balance. The General Ledger classifies the accounting effect across accounts. They must agree, but they are not the same record set and they answer different questions.
Audience: accountants, bursars, auditors, implementers, support analysts, and close owners
Learning time: 45 minutes
Navigation: source Finance workspaces, General Ledger → Accounts, General Ledger → Journals, and Month-end tie-out
Boundary: P5 teaches internal source-to-ledger agreement. Bank statement and provider settlement agreement is P6.
Learning outcomes
You will be able to:
- distinguish source detail, subledger balance, journal evidence, account activity, and statement balance;
- trace a source ID into one or more journal documents;
- explain why a balanced trial balance can still disagree with a subledger;
- use month-end diagnostics to classify unposted sources, orphaned GL entries, methodology gaps, and data-quality findings;
- separate missing-journal remediation from non-missing-journal repair;
- avoid manual journals that conceal source-to-ledger differences;
- prepare a reproducible evidence chain for review and support.
Record relationships
Makronexus journal source types include payments, invoices, refunds, adjustments, expenditures, fee adjustments, scholarships, credit notes, payroll, platform billing, manual entries, and reversals. A journal detail can include source reference, display name, status, amount, currency, and expanded source information.
An account-activity view answers which posted movements affected one account. A source workspace answers what happened to the student, payer, supplier, employee, or other operational object. A statement aggregates ledger balances. A tie-out compares selected ledger balances with source/subledger calculations.
Prerequisites
| Requirement | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Source record access | invoice, Payment, refund, expenditure, or other detail |
| Journal access | source filters and journal detail |
| Account access | code, name, type, normal balance, school scope |
| Date and currency alignment | same cut-off, school, and currency |
| Defined tie-out methodology | which source statuses and components are included |
| Posting readiness | active mapping and no unresolved blocker |
| Exact permissions | read/list abilities for source, journal, account, diagnostics |
| Reviewer | independent person for material residuals |
Roles and exact permissions
| Action | Exact ability |
|---|---|
| List journals | gl_journal_entry:list |
| Read journal detail | gl_journal_entry:read |
| List accounts | gl_account:list |
| Read account | gl_account:read |
| View statements | gl:statements |
| View month-end tie-out | month_end_tie_out:read |
| Run tie-out | month_end_tie_out:run |
| View posting exceptions | finance_posting_exception:list |
| Resolve posting exception | finance_posting_exception:resolve |
| View posting readiness | finance_control:readiness |
Source modules have their own abilities. Never grant broad journal mutation merely to let a reviewer inspect source-to-ledger evidence.
Why agreement can fail
A trial balance can be balanced because every journal has equal debits and credits while still containing:
- an eligible source that never posted;
- a duplicated journal;
- a journal posted to the wrong control account;
- a manual entry with no source;
- a source included or excluded by the wrong methodology;
- a currency or cut-of mismatch;
- a source correction made after the ledger cut-off;
- orphaned GL evidence whose source no longer resolves.
The month-end diagnostics contract classifies findings as unposted_source, orphaned_gl, methodology_gap, or data_quality, with severities from low to critical. It can provide samples, suspects, recommendations, and caveats.
Guided trace procedure
- Fix the comparison frame. Record tenant, school, currency, source cut-off, ledger cut-off, and inclusion methodology.
- Read the source. Capture source ID, number/reference, state, date, amount, currency, approvals, verification, and correction history.
- Search journals by source. Use source type and source ID. If none exists, do not create a manual journal before checking posting exceptions and readiness.
- Read journal headers and lines. Confirm source linkage, school, date, accounts, amounts, currencies, exchange rate, status, poster, and reversals.
- Open account activity. Confirm the line appears in the expected control and offset accounts.
- Run the relevant statement. Use the same date and currency.
- Run or read month-end tie-out. Compare ledger and subledger amounts for the relevant section.
- Open diagnostics for a residual. Record finding code, category, severity, impact, samples, suspects, and recommendation.
- Choose the correction class. Missing eligible journal may use dry-run remediation; an existing wrong journal requires reversal/repair; methodology defects require definition correction.
- Rerun the full chain. Verify source, journal, account, statement, and tie-out after correction.
Remediation safety
The remediation contract defaults to dry-run. It scans candidate source records and reports planned, posted, skipped, or failed outcomes. Skips include no posting required, no actor, and no Chart of Accounts mapping. A dry-run must not be described as a completed repair.
Apply only after reviewing every actionable candidate. Record candidate counts, planned postings, actual posted counts, skipped reasons, failures, and errors. A backfill journal should retain the original source identity and posting type.
For a non-missing-journal variance, use the governed repair or reversal workflow supported by the product. Do not add a plug journal that merely forces the control balance to agree.
Worked scenario: Mupfure Learning Academy
The August receivables tie-out shows the GL receivable account USD 1,200 higher than the student source balance. Diagnostics identify one reversed invoice whose original journal remains active and one methodology gap involving a legacy opening balance.
The accountant does not post a USD 1,200 credit to receivables. The original invoice journal is reviewed and corrected through linked reversal evidence. The opening-balance methodology is documented and the tie-out is rerun. The residual reaches zero with an auditable explanation.
Accounting impact
| Difference class | Correct accounting response |
|---|---|
| source eligible, journal absent | backfill through source-aware posting after dry run |
| source absent, journal present | investigate orphan and reverse/repair if invalid |
| journal wrong account | linked reversal and correct repost |
| duplicate journal | establish duplicate economic identity, reverse authorised duplicate |
| methodology mismatch | correct comparison logic, not ledger amounts |
| cut-off mismatch | align dates or document timing difference |
| bank/provider mismatch | hand to P6; do not change GL without accounting basis |
Controls and audit evidence
Retain source export/detail, journal list filters, journal header/lines, account activity, statement parameters, tie-out run ID, diagnostics snapshot, finding codes, remediation dry run, approval, applied result, actor, timestamps, and rerun evidence.
The tie-out run can carry manifest and snapshot hashes. Treat those as evidence that the reviewed inputs have not silently changed. A later source change requires a new run, not reuse of a prior sign-off.
Failure modes
| Symptom | Likely cause | Evidence to inspect | Safe action | Escalate when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| source total and GL differ | missing, duplicate, wrong-account, cut-off, or methodology issue | diagnostics and source/journal samples | classify before correcting | residual cannot be explained |
dry run shows skipped_no_coa | missing mapping/account | posting controls and accounts | fix configuration, rerun dry run | mapping exists but skip remains |
dry run shows skipped_no_actor | no attributable system actor | remediation result | configure approved actor path | product cannot provide actor evidence |
| source search finds many journals | legitimate components, projections, retries, or duplicates | header IDs, source IDs, idempotency keys | group by economic document | duplicate identity unclear |
| tie-out is balanced but source detail is wrong | methodology excludes defect | section definition and caveats | correct methodology and rerun | balanced result masks known defect |
| manual journal makes variance zero | plug entry hides root cause | source linkage and description | reverse plug and correct root cause | close was signed off using plug |
Verification checklist
- Source and ledger comparisons use the same school, date, and currency.
- Source status and amount logic is documented.
- Every expected journal is source-linked.
- Journal documents are grouped correctly.
- Control-account activity reproduces journal lines.
- Trial-balance totals are server-computed.
- Tie-out methodology and caveats are retained.
- Diagnostics classify every material variance.
- Dry-run and applied remediation are distinguished.
- Correction preserves source and reversal lineage.
- P6 settlement differences are not forced through P5 journals.
Practice and knowledge check
Guided practice: trace one invoice and one verified Payment from source records through journals, account activity, trial balance, and tie-out.
Independent scenario: the trial balance is balanced but receivables differ from student balances. Explain why this is possible and create an investigation tree.
- What does a subledger explain that the GL does not?
- Why can a balanced trial balance still be wrong?
- What are the four diagnostic categories?
- Why does remediation begin with a dry run?
- When is a manual journal the wrong response?
- What evidence proves a source-aware backfill?
- Which differences belong to P6?
Answer guide: source detail explains operational composition; double-entry equality does not prove completeness/classification; categories are unposted source, orphaned GL, methodology gap, and data quality; dry run prevents blind mutation; plug journals hide root causes; source ID, posting type, journal and actor prove backfill; bank/provider settlement differences belong to reconciliation.
Next lesson
Continue to Posting review and approval.