Somehow, we are not doing (much?) periodic posting - I’ll explain that more in a reply maybe.
But I say this to say that for example, the General Ledger shows every posted ADJ-QTY and DMR-STK and a bunch of other transactions now - no need to run the Inventory/WIP Reconciliation Report to see those details!
OTOH, for PUR-xxx, it the credit transactions post to the GL line by line while the debit ones still are rolled as a Periodic Posting Process. Odd but OK.
But the really odd thing was the STK-MTL transactions. I could not tie the numbers until I realized that it ignores an issue and return that cancel each other out. (I mean, in the same posting. I didn’t prove that part, but it must be the case.)
Here’s a banal example of a one-penny part (it’s customer supplied but we track it). For job 108703-3-1, it was issued, unissued, then reissued. IWR shows all of that, but the GL report has only one.
(Yes they are all posted. No, these were not backdated.)
For the entire month, it all nets out, so it’s fine. But it was a surprise!
Also, just to hammer this example home, the part transactions (in yellow below) are very close to each other in real time. But isn’t it wild that the Journal Line in the GL Report above is 45 when its friends are in the 11,000 range?
After all of that, I asked Copilot. It said (paraphrasing…), “You idiot, the total repeats on every line, you can’t sum by that - that’s your problem!”
I believe that summarization is something you can control. If you go to GL Transaction Type Maintenance, open COSAndWIP, go to Rules and click on the Book Detail, you will see this:
0) Summarize (default)
1) Summarize debit and credits separately
2) No summarization
3) Override
The default is what you’re seeing.
Now, this comes to a philosophical question for each company. Some companies want ALL the detail in the G/L. It’s the mindset of people who want to see everything in one place. That’s why they’re called Controllers.
But then there are companies like Dana Corporation. Their chart of accounts for all divisions fit on a single page. They didn’t want to see that level of detail in their G/L.
The GL Transaction Type allows you to see the level you want.
It never used to be itemized, and now it is (for us). I researched it a few months ago and found it started the day after an upgrade (either 2022.2 or 2024.2).
What is odd to me is the inconsistency. PO Debits consolidated but not the credits, for example.
We just made the jump from 10.2.700 to 2025.2 so the Period Posting Process change is fresh on my mind.
The descriptions for the GL transactions now pull information about the transaction including the transaction type and part number. The summarization setting then looks for transactions with the same description and date and groups them together based on your summarization settings.
Since the descriptions are not the same for most transactions, they end up split apart on the GL. If a pair of transactions have the same description (say, a +/- STK-MTL for the same part number) then the summarization would still group these together. Same goes for multiple STK-MTL transactions on the same day for the same part to the same job.
What’s interesting is that our transactions are split apart on both the credit (AP Clearing) and debit (expense) side for PO receipts. We didn’t make any adjustments to the posting rules during our upgrade since our finance team actually wanted all the detail in the ledger. I’d check your posting rules to see if you changed any descriptions on the credit side of transactions.
I appreciate the insight. I’m not trying to press for answers - it’s all a bit moot to me. I mean it is a worthy discussion, so I’m not trying to shut it down. Just don’t feel obligated to respond.
If I had never uncovered any of this… my life would be the same.
I “grew up” in the world where GL had periodic postings and the IWR had all the details. Fundamentally, that’s still the basic truth.
Here are some of my settings. I think only the COSAndWIP one matters.
Here’s a sanitized version of my numbers, just for a single account (the main inventory account).
I took the real numbers and multiplied or divided by an arbitrary factor - then rounded. So they are proportionally identical, but the magnitude is obscured.
Like I say, it’s the inconsistency of the summing that is wild. Some types and not others, or only credits and not debits.
Just to be clear, my example here is a single account. So the PO receipt credits are just reversals of receipts. To me there is no tangible difference that would make all positive PO receipts summed and all negative PO receipts split.
Lol I really was not that invested in this before. But now I just get all the more curious. Should I be reporting this?
But it still bugs me why PUR-xxx debits are not being itemized then. Maybe they are for others?
It is notable, though, that those are the only posting rules I have that are modified (see tree on left).
The mod is the same in all of them - if the transaction is for a certain site, then override the department. Does not sound like it would affect the posting description.
I’ll tell you what I want, what I really, really want. I don’t care if it consolidates or not. Either is fine.
But I wish it would post the sum total of debits AND the sum total of credits - not just the net of them. Like this. Then you could actually reconcile the… reconciliation report(!)… to the GL posting.
