ASC 606 contract review where a second agent argues back and you sign every step
Every judgement cited, challenged by a second agent and signed before revenue is booked.
See one case, screen by screen ↓It reviews customer contracts for ASC 606 / IFRS 15 terms and drafts the revenue memo. Seven agents gather the signed package and the deal's emails, cite every revenue term to its page, judge each of the five steps by your revenue policy and challenge every judgement. The technical accounting lead approves each step with a reason, and the memo is written as the steps are signed and locks at five of five.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
The five steps of ASC 606 and IFRS 15 are simple to state: identify the contract, the performance obligations, the transaction price, allocate it by standalone selling price, and recognise revenue as each obligation is satisfied. The contracts are not simple. Free months, paid implementation, service credits, renewal discounts, termination for convenience and the email a salesperson sent before signature all change the answer. A revenue accountant gathers the package by hand, works through a checklist, and the non-standard calls go to technical accounting, usually in a memo written at quarter end.
That is where restatements start. A side letter never reaches finance. A termination right or a free period is misread. A judgement follows precedent after the policy changed. The billing system invoices months the contract made free. And at year end the auditor asks for the clause, the policy version in force and the approver behind every number, and the team rebuilds it from email.
Estimated split for one complex, multi-obligation customer contract, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents read, judge and challenge each of the five steps; the technical accounting lead decides and signs.
Pellmoor Health has signed a 3-year platform subscription with paid implementation: $1,274,000 fixed, signed 26 Sep 2026, service from 1 Oct. Two months are free, service credits apply below 99.5% uptime, and the memo is due Friday. Here is how Nadia Khan, technical accounting lead at Kestrel & Vane Group, works through it with the agents — screen by screen, in the working solution.
Since 1 Oct, 16 contracts have come in; 6 are signed or confirmed and 3 wait for Nadia. The briefing comes from the review team as a short thread: the challenger disagrees on Pellmoor Health, the intake agent has found a side letter on Tarnwell Logistics, and the judgement agent puts a fiscal-funding clause on Corrin Water Authority and a performance bonus on Halbrook Aerospace to her. Every item cites its clause and offers the next action.
Challenger agent: “I disagree with how the price is split in step 4. Service credits belong to the subscription alone under RR-4.3 v4; it moves $1,018.19.”
The contract, What we promised and The price are signed. Splitting the price shows the clauses it rests on — service credits at MSA p.14, the $84,000 implementation fee at SOW p.3, the SSP study, the $35,000 monthly fee at Order Form p.2. The judgement agent, 88% confident, splits all $1,260,000 by relative SSP: subscription $1,168,363.64, implementation $91,636.36. The challenger's figures sit beside it, with the difference.
“Next for you: decide how to split the price; the challenger disagrees with the judgement agent.”
Nadia asks in the conversation beside the step. The judgement agent answers plainly: it followed the two most similar contracts, RC-2417 and RC-2488, which split the whole price by SSP — and both were signed before RR-4.3 version 4 came into effect on 2 Sep 2026. It cites the policy and concedes the point.
Judgement agent: “The challenger is right that the current version puts service credits on the subscription alone.”
The judgement agent re-runs the step: the fixed $1,274,000 split by SSP, then the $14,000 of expected service credits to the subscription. Subscription $1,167,345.45, implementation $92,654.55. The challenger re-tests it and marks “Proposal now matches”. Nothing changes unseen, and the step still waits for her.
“The judgement agent re-ran step 4 with the challenger's split. It still needs your approval.”
She picks the reason Policy applied (current version) and writes the note for the record: precedent RC-2417 and RC-2488 predates RR-4.3 v4. The signature carries its meaning — she approves this judgement for the revenue memo of RC-2611. Send back and Edit sit on the same bar, each with its own reasons.
“Signing as Nadia Khan, technical accounting lead. Meaning: I approve this judgement for the revenue memo of RC-2611.”
The moment step 4 is signed, the memo writer adds section 4: SSP of $1,224,000 for the subscription and $96,000 for implementation, the $14,000 of credits allocated entirely to the subscription under ASC 606-10-32-40 and RR-4.3 v4, and the resulting split. Each paragraph carries its citations. Four of five sections are written; step 5 is still marked “Written when step 5 is signed.”
“Step 4 signed. The memo writer added section 4.”
When we earn it: the subscription ratably from 1 Oct 2026, when access was granted, free months included — $32,426.26 a month — and implementation over time by labour hours on the 1,150-hour plan. Both agents agree; she signs. With five of five signed she signs and locks the memo, addressed to the contract file and to Helen Ward, the corporate controller. It cites 22 passages, and any change after locking opens a new version.
“I approve this memo as the accounting conclusion for RC-2611.”
The schedule agent built revenue and billing by month: to 31 Dec 2026, revenue $175,430.87, billed $77,000, contract asset $98,430.87. It also found the billing system set to invoice $35,000 in October and November, months the order form makes free. The correction is drafted for billing operations and changes nothing until a person sends it; hand-off to the revenue system waits for it.
“Hand-off waits for the billing correction.”
On Tarnwell Logistics ($2,416,500), the intake agent read 41 emails and 2 approvals as well as the signed documents. An email of 24 Sep offers a 90-day return on the 1,200 telematics units. The agents treat it as part of the contract until the deal desk says otherwise, so revenue on $612,000 of hardware likely to be returned waits for the return period. Owen confirms or rejects it; above $2M, Helen co-signs.
The email: “If the units don't suit your depots, you can send them back within 90 days of delivery for full credit.”
Because the judgement agent followed precedent from before RR-4.3 v4, the challenger suggests one sentence for the policy: contracts signed before 2 Sep 2026 are not precedent for it. Nadia owns the policy and can approve it as RR-4.3 v5 or decline. Every policy shows its versions and the contracts that cite it — RR-4.3 is cited by 140.
Suggested wording: “This version replaces earlier practice. Contracts signed before 2 Sep 2026 are not precedent for this policy.”
The same contract, seen by the five people who carry it — what their quarter looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents read, judge and challenge each of the five steps; the technical accounting lead decides and signs.
Gathers the signed package and every document it references, reads the deal's emails and approvals, checks completeness and flags any promise that changes the customer's rights as a side letter for the deal desk.
Extracts the 14 revenue-relevant terms — service start, committed term, fees, free months, implementation, service credits, termination, renewal, payment terms — each with the quoted passage, page and a confidence.
Applies the company's revenue policy, version in force, to each of the five steps: lists the clauses that drive it, shows its plan, the calculation, the sources read and its confidence.
Re-derives every step independently against the current policy version, the standard and the three most similar signed contracts, and says it agrees or disagrees, with the figures. Suggests policy wording where the policy left room for the error.
Writes each section of the revenue memo when its step is signed, from the signed judgement only, with a citation on every sentence.
Builds the revenue and billing schedules by month with the contract asset or liability, compares them with the billing system's set-up and drafts corrections.
Watches signed contracts for amendments and proposes the treatment under policy RR-6.1 — separate contract, prospective or cumulative catch-up — citing the amendment and the original memo.
Approves each step with a reason. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask in plain words, or say what to prepare. The agents answer from the signed documents and the policy set in force, cite the source, and change nothing without you.
Why does the challenger disagree on Pellmoor Health?
Service credits relate only to the subscription, so policy RR-4.3 v4 (in force since 2 Sep 2026) and ASC 606-10-32-40 put the whole $14,000 estimate on the subscription; only the fixed $1,274,000 is split by SSP. The judgement agent followed RC-2417 and RC-2488, both signed before v4. The difference is $1,018.19.
Which open contracts have free months?
Two: Pellmoor Health has 2 free months inside a 36-month term, and Sunmere Hotels has 3 free months, still being read. Both are treated under RR-3.1.
Show the billing mismatch on Pellmoor Health
The billing system is set to invoice $35,000 in October and November 2026, but the order form makes both months free; invoicing starts 1 December. The schedule agent has drafted a correction for billing operations, and it changes nothing until a person sends it.
Is a 15% renewal discount a problem?
Yes, probably. Above 10% RR-3.2 asks us to assess a material right, which would defer part of today's price to the renewal year. Keep it at 10% or less, or price the first term higher.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The agents judge only by the policy version in force. The thresholds, clocks and what makes a contract non-standard are settings, saved and logged.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting basis | ASC 606 for 23 US entities · IFRS 15 for 9 EU and UK entities | ASC 606 or IFRS 15, per legal entity |
| A contract is non-standard when it has | All 9 triggers on | Free or discounted periods · termination for convenience · acceptance clauses · renewal discounts · variable fees, credits and bonuses · side agreements and concession emails · bill-and-hold · fiscal funding clauses · payment terms over 60 days |
| Controller signs contracts above | $2,000,000, and any policy exception | Any amount, set by the technical accounting lead or the administrator |
| Agents ask a person below confidence | 80%, per term and per step | Any level, set by the technical accounting lead or the administrator |
| Memo signed within | 15 business days of signature | Any number of business days |
| Reminder and escalation | Reminder to the approver at day 10 · escalation to the controller at day 15, with the reason | Any number of business days |
| Bulk confirmation allowed for | Standard contracts only, by a revenue accountant | Standard contracts only |
| Notifications | A step waits for me · the challenger disagrees · a side letter is found · a memo is 2 days from its clock · billing differs from the contract · an amendment on a locked contract | Each on or off; daily digest by email at 07:30 off by default |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample contracts · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Audit Analytics restatement reviews — revenue recognition the top restatement issue 2018–2020; practitioner and vendor estimates of 2–6 hours to read a complex, multi-obligation contract, directional only). ASC 606 and IFRS 15 are named as the standards the review applies. People, companies, contracts and policies named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
It reviews customer contracts for ASC 606 / IFRS 15 terms and drafts the revenue memo. Seven agents gather the signed package and the deal's emails, cite every revenue term to its page, judge each of the five steps by your revenue policy and challenge every judgement. The technical accounting lead approves each step with a reason, and the memo is written as the steps are signed and locks at five of five.
One contract is one five-step rail: the contract, what we promised, the price, splitting the price and when we earn it. For each step the judgement agent shows the clauses, the policy version, the calculation and its confidence, and the challenger agent says whether it agrees. The lead asks either of them why, instructs them in plain words, and approves, edits or sends back the step.
Yes. The reporting basis is set per legal entity — in the working solution, ASC 606 for 23 US entities and IFRS 15 for 9 EU and UK entities. A contract of an IFRS 15 entity is reviewed under IFRS 15, and the agents compare the treatment with ASC 606 and note whether it differs.
The intake agent reads the deal's emails and approvals as well as the signed documents. Any promise that changes the customer's rights — a right of return, a concession, a price exception — is treated as part of the contract and sent to the deal desk to confirm, with the email quoted.
The disagreement stays on the screen with both sets of figures and their sources, and a person decides. The challenger never edits the judgement and never resolves its own disagreement; the lead can apply its method, keep the judgement, or edit it with a reason. Where the policy left room for the error, the challenger suggests wording for a new policy version.
No. Agents never sign a step or a memo, never post a journal entry, never change the billing system — they draft corrections — and never edit a locked memo. The technical accounting lead signs each step and the memo, and the corporate controller co-signs above $2,000,000 or on any policy exception.
Read-only access to everything: the memo, the clauses, the policy versions in force, every approval with its reason and every agent run, on an audit trail that cannot be edited. The auditor can ask the agents questions and export the evidence pack for a contract, but cannot change anything.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your revenue policy, your contract templates and a sample of past signed contracts and memos — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own contracts first.
Every balance tied to its support, and every difference explained before anyone signs.
1-min demoFlux AnalysisEvery variance explained to within 5%, with cited drivers, before the board sees it.
1-min demoAccrual AutomationEvery accrual proposed with its proof by day one, checked so no cost is counted twice.
1-min demoWe'll run Revenue Recognition Contract Review on a sample of your own signed contracts and your revenue policy.