Bank Feeds
When Automation Outpaced Oversight
Bank feeds did not fail in this file. They kept working long after verification quietly stepped out of the process.
This breakdown is one piece of a larger failure pattern explored in the full cleanup case study .
Bank feeds were not the problem in this file.
They worked exactly as designed when the system was rebuilt and actively maintained. Transactions imported cleanly. Reconciliations anchored cash. Differences were addressed before they could linger.
The shift happened later, after stewardship changed.
This breakdown explains how bank feeds gradually became a source of uncertainty, not because they failed, but because verification quietly stepped out of the process.
Foundational Breakdown
What Bank Feeds Look Like When They’re Supporting Clarity
After the rebuild, bank feeds functioned as a controlled intake tool.
What Was Working
Transactions were imported, reviewed, and reconciled consistently. Duplicate activity was identified early. Timing issues were corrected in the period they occurred. Cash balances tied cleanly to bank statements.
What Changed
Over time, verification slowed. Reconciliations became inconsistent and prior differences were left unresolved.
How the Pattern Appeared
Duplicate transactions existed alongside missing ones. Timing gaps spanned multiple periods. Cash looked reasonable but did not tie cleanly to statements.
Why It Became Risky
Bank feeds continued reflecting transaction flow, but no longer reflected bank reality. Confidence eroded quietly.
When Cash Stopped Feeling Solid
Cash is the starting point for everything else. Once it required explanation, profit, liabilities, loans, and working capital followed.
This didn’t create panic. It created friction. As the file moved closer to external review, that friction mattered more.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do bank feeds cause accounting problems?
No. Bank feeds amplify the structure and verification surrounding them. They do not create issues on their own.
Why did the file feel fine until review?
Because transaction flow continued even as confirmation slowed. Activity existed, but confidence behind it faded.
Is disconnecting and reconnecting feeds risky?
Yes, when prior differences are not resolved first. It layers new activity on top of unresolved history.
What restored confidence?
Re-anchoring cash to statements, rebuilding reconciliation continuity, removing duplicates, and correcting timing gaps deliberately.
Not sure if your bank feeds are helping or just adding noise?
The Complete Check Diagnostic clarifies whether bank feeds are supporting confidence or quietly making the file harder to trust.
Start the Diagnostic