Three reports, one week, three honest totals
Reconcile fictional itemised sales, payments received and a staff commission statement through a precise $990, $880 and $360 bridge.
The itemised sales file says $990.00. The payment summary says $880.00. The staff statement says $360.00. All three can be internally correct because they count different things. This fictional week shows the bridge between them, including an opening receivable, a closing receivable and a refund.
Worked fictional example · amounts in AUD
The useful part
Reconcile definitions before comparing totals. Sales dated in a week, money collected in a week and commission calculated for that week are different measures.
Your working files
Download the report bridgeCSV · Fictional sales and receipt adjustments; an explanatory register, not an import file.Define what the week contains
For 21–27 September 2026, the fictional itemised report contains $1,100.00 of positive sales and a −$110.00 refund. Supplied tax on those lines is $100.00 and −$10.00 respectively. The net gross sales figure is therefore $990.00, with $90.00 tax and a $900.00 excluding-tax basis. All included items use a supplied flat 40% commission rate.
We also know two timing facts. A $220.00 opening receivable from an earlier sale was collected this week. A $330.00 sale included in this week’s sales remains unpaid at the end of the week. The example treats the refund as paid during this week and assumes no other timing differences.
Report one: itemised sales dated in the week
The sales report groups by the date of the sales or refund records. It includes the $330.00 unpaid sale because that sale belongs to this date range. It excludes the $220.00 opening receivable because its original sale predates the range. The result is $1,100.00 − $110.00 = $990.00.
This tells us about the sales records selected by the report. It does not establish that the whole $990.00 was collected during the same dates. Before importing a source, record the date field and filters used to produce it. A filename containing “weekly” is not enough to establish that definition.
Report two: payments actually collected in the week
Start with $990.00 sales dated in the week. Add the $220.00 collected on the opening receivable, because it is in this week’s receipts but outside this week’s sales. Subtract the $330.00 closing receivable, because it is in this week’s sales but outside this week’s receipts. The payment figure becomes $880.00.
This simplified case stops at receipts. It does not model card fees, settlement delays, cash movements or bank deposits. If a real payment report includes any of those layers, add separate bridge lines with evidence. Do not force a bank figure into this small example by changing a sales amount.
| Step | Adjustment | Running total |
|---|---|---|
| Sales dated in week | $990.00 | $990.00 |
| Opening receivable collected | +$220.00 | $1,210.00 |
| Closing receivable not yet collected | −$330.00 | $880.00 |
Report three: commission on the supplied basis
For this case, the commission arrangement uses the itemised sales basis excluding supplied tax, including the refund. The $900.00 basis at 40% produces $360.00. That result is neither a revenue total nor a receipts total. Comparing it directly with $990.00 or $880.00 without the formula would be meaningless.
If the supplied arrangement instead used collection timing, the source selection would need to change. We do not switch between those arrangements mid-calculation. The example deliberately fixes one definition so that you can reproduce the result. Deciding the appropriate basis for a real business requires its actual arrangement and relevant advice, not inference from which report happens to match.
Why adjusting the commission to match receipts fails
Multiplying the $880.00 receipts total by 40% would give $352.00, but that arithmetic applies the rate to gross receipts without removing supplied tax or respecting the example’s sales-date basis. The answer is numerically close enough to look plausible and methodologically wrong for this case. A small difference is not evidence of a small problem.
The useful question is not “which report is right?” It is “what does each report include, and can the differences be named?” Timing, tax and commission policy each need their own explanation. A single balancing entry hides all three and makes the next week harder to reconcile.
Keep the reports distinct in the handover
The download lists the four bridge components and their signed gross, tax and basis values. The receivable rows are bridge adjustments, not extra commission sales to import. Treating them as new sales would duplicate the underlying activity. This file is an explanatory register rather than a ready-made transaction import.
Give each source report a role in the handover: itemised source for commission, payment summary for receipt timing, and completed statement for the calculated result. Record the date field, export filters and period on each. When a reviewer asks about $110.00 of difference between sales and receipts, the bridge can answer without reopening the commission calculation.
The next week tests the explanation
A good timing explanation should predict what happens later. When the $330.00 closing receivable is collected next week, it belongs in next week’s receipts but should not become a second sale in an invoice-date commission workflow. That is the same pattern as this week’s $220.00 opening receivable.
Use this prediction to check the source process. If the later report counts the sale again under the chosen sales definition, investigate overlap before finalising. The bridge is complete only when the opening and closing items can be traced to their original references. Three different totals become useful when each has a stable definition and a reproducible path to the others.
Put it to work.
Inspect source rows, supplied rates and review decisions in the sample workspace.
Explore the sample close