---
title: "P&L review process"
sidebarTitle: "P&L review"
description: "The report set, store-status checks, G&A and admin checks, the B04 dimension completeness check, and the AI-assisted trend pass."
icon: "chart-line"
---

> **For AI agents:** the complete documentation index is at [llms.txt](/llms.txt). Append `.md` to any page URL for its markdown version.

<Warning>
  **Complete the P&L review only after the balance sheet review is finalized.** The P&L review functions as a **final check on balance sheet completeness** — a glaring case discussed in the walkthrough was a location known to be **missing rent expense entirely.** Reviewing the P&L side-by-side after the balance sheet is done is exactly the kind of check that catches that before the books are called closed.
</Warning>

<Info>
  **Source:** `Rackson_RRS_RCY_Review_Process.docx` section 25.
</Info>

## The report set

| Report | Purpose |
|---|---|
| **Side-by-side** | **The primary report used to confirm the close is accurate and complete.** Reviewed store-by-store, since it surfaces store-level anomalies — a missing or unusual expense at a specific location — that a consolidated trend view would obscure. **This is the report to use as the final gate** before signing off that a balance sheet is done. |
| **Trend by location (Income Statement Trend – TTP)** | An **analytical** report used to validate consistency over time. Most useful at the **consolidated level** — it becomes difficult to parse store-by-store given the store count (roughly 95 per concept). At that volume it is easy to get disoriented tracking which anomaly belongs to which store. |

### Consolidated reports available in Intacct

Under **Income Statement**:

- Income Statement (Total Rackson, both concepts combined)
- Income Statement Trend TTP – RCY (consolidated)
- Income Statement Trend TTP – RRS (consolidated)

<Note>
  The two report options **just above** the consolidated trend reports are the **store-by-store** trend versions for each concept — running all ~95 stores for restaurants, for example.
</Note>

<Frame caption="Side-by-side P&L report in Intacct — the primary completeness check">
  <img src="/images/customers/rackson/review-process/image9.jpg" alt="Sage Intacct side-by-side P&L report showing locations across columns" />
</Frame>

## Store-status checks — closed and not-yet-open locations

For any closed or not-yet-open location, confirm there is **no activity other than the expected pre-opening or closed-store expense account.**

<Steps>
  <Step title="Go straight to the bottom of the location's P&L">
    The quickest path.
  </Step>
  <Step title="Confirm the account structure looks right">
  </Step>
  <Step title="Confirm the pre-open expense line equals net income">
    **Net income for that location should equal the pre-open/closed-store expense line, with nothing else posted.**
  </Step>
</Steps>

<Note>
  **Illustrative examples.** Store 1498 had zero sales because it is **not yet open**. Store 1332 is a **new store** and is expected to show noisy trend-report comparisons simply because it **lacks prior-period history** — not because of an error.
</Note>

The mechanics of the entry that produces this state are on [Closed store reclass](/internal/customers/rackson/review-process/closed-store-reclass).

## G&A and admin account checks

<Steps>
  <Step title="Confirm store-level G&A holds only accounting fees">
    Investigate anything else showing up at the store level.
  </Step>
  <Step title="Confirm the admin/corporate consolidation cost centers show no store-level detail">
    Specifically, **in-house maintenance should already have been allocated out to the stores** by the time this is reviewed. See [In-house maintenance](/internal/customers/rackson/review-process/in-house-maintenance).
  </Step>
  <Step title="Watch for all-location GL adjustments">
    <Warning>
      Watch for **company-wide (all-location) GL adjustments that inadvertently hit the admin or closed-store buckets** because they were coded to "all locations" rather than a specific store. When this happens, **flag it and reclass — this is a recurring pattern rather than a one-off.**
    </Warning>
  </Step>
</Steps>

## Location-coding / dimension completeness check (B04)

Run the Intacct **dimension balance report (Report B04)** for P&L accounts, **with the "include sub-dimensions" option unchecked.**

| Setting | Result |
|---|---|
| Sub-dimensions **checked** | Rolls up all child locations under a parent dimension |
| Sub-dimensions **unchecked** | Returns **only balances posted directly to the top-level (or otherwise non-specific) dimension** — which is exactly what surfaces P&L activity that was never coded to an actual store |

<Note>
  **This is a standard completeness check that should be run for every client, not just Rackson**, and it takes only a couple of minutes once the report parameters are set up correctly.
</Note>

## AI-assisted trend analysis

After the report set is generated, the **trend report is run through an AI-assisted prompt** to flag anomalies relative to historical trend and to peer-store performance — for example percentage-of-sales outliers on cost of sales, labor, or similar high-volume accounts.

<Note>
  **The prompt has been refined iteratively.** The most recent refinement was specifically designed to **constrain the analysis so it stays organized and directly responsive** to what is being asked, rather than returning broad, unstructured commentary. The intent is to keep the analysis reliably covering the specific things being asked for rather than free-associating across the report.

  Before this approach, the practice was to ask more open-ended questions of the same report. The newer, structured prompt is intended to **preserve that breadth of coverage while making the output easier to act on.**
</Note>

### Recommended sequence — and why

<Steps>
  <Step title="Ground the review in the side-by-side report first">
    To catch anything the close itself missed — for example a location missing rent expense entirely, a scenario the side-by-side view catches that a trend view might not.
  </Step>
  <Step title="Then run the trend report through the AI-assisted analysis">
    For a broader, comparative view across stores and time.
  </Step>
</Steps>

<Note>
  This mirrors **how the client's own finance team reviews these reports** — they also lead with the side-by-side view. Staying aligned with that sequence keeps PBI's review consistent with how the client reads the numbers.
</Note>

<Warning>
  **The trend report is a "last check," not the primary completeness check.** If the balance sheet is done and the side-by-side looks right, the trend/AI pass is there to catch something **both of those steps missed** — not to replace them.
</Warning>

## RCY additions

For RCY, the period-close review also includes running both the **Side by Side** and **Period Trend** favorited reports and storing them as Excel for AI-assisted review, confirming **inventory is posted for each location**, and pulling the **labor report out of ProWork.**

## Related

- [Intacct reporting infrastructure](/internal/customers/rackson/review-process/intacct-reporting) — how these reports are built, and what breaks when you change them
- [Intercompany tie-out](/internal/customers/rackson/review-process/intercompany-tie-out) — run as part of finalizing the balance sheet, not as an afterthought
- [RRS prelims](/internal/customers/rackson/workpapers/rrs-prelims) and [RCY prelims](/internal/customers/rackson/workpapers/rcy-prelims) — the prelim workpapers
- [Period end financial report tie out](/internal/customers/rackson/processes/period-end-report-tie-out) — the screenshot walkthrough of the report tie-out