Case study
When Cleanup Is No Longer the Right Answer
This file did not fail because of one mistake. It failed because multiple structural failures were allowed to coexist for too long. By the time it was reviewed, cleanup was no longer corrective. It was risky.
Start With a DiagnosticThe starting point
What the File Looked Like on the Surface
On the surface, the file was active. Transactions were flowing. Reports were generating. Balances existed.
But none of it could be trusted. What looked like normal operational noise was actually the accumulation of unresolved structural issues across the entire system.
How the breakdown stacked
How Multiple Failures Removed Every Anchor Point
Each failure on its own might have been manageable. Together, they removed every reliable anchor point in the file.
This is the practical application of what’s explained in Cleanup Fundamentals: when structure erodes, problems stop appearing in isolation.
- Bank feeds: Transactions imported without verification. Duplicates and gaps existed at the same time. Cash balances no longer reflected reality.
- Transaction review: Volume increased, but review discipline did not. Imports overlapped manual entries. Totals smoothed over broken detail.
- Chart of accounts: Direct costs buried in overhead. Payroll types mixed together. Assets absorbed payments that belonged to liabilities.
- Reconciliation: Accounts showed reconciliation reports, but unresolved differences rolled forward. Journal entries forced alignment.
- Liabilities: Payroll and benefit liabilities never cleared. Loan balances did not reduce. Interest and principal were commingled.
- Multi entity: Costs crossed company lines. Entity boundaries blurred. Profitability lost meaning.
- Project setup: Projects accumulated without closure. Costs lingered without context. Structure never adjusted as activity grew.
Why cleanup failed
Why Cleanup Became Unsafe
Cleanup relies on at least one trustworthy reference point. In this file, none existed.
- Cash could not be validated
- Liabilities could not be explained
- Assets could not be confirmed
- Revenue could not be tied to operations
- Historical periods could not be relied on
Every attempted fix risked introducing new errors. At that point, cleanup stopped being responsible.
The recommendation
The Safest Path Forward
Preserve external records
Bank statements, loan documents, payroll records, and tax filings were protected as the source of truth.
Archive the existing file
The file was retained for reference but removed from active use.
Rebuild structure intentionally
A new framework was designed to reflect how the business actually operated.
Reintroduce data under clear rules
Data was re-entered only after structure and controls were established.
Starting over was not a failure. Continuing would have been.
Why this matters
What This Case Study Shows
Most people think cleanup means fixing mistakes. This case study shows something different.
Cleanup is about restoring truth. And sometimes, the only way to do that is to rebuild the system that produces the numbers.
Each category post linked to this case study explains one failure. This page shows what happens when all of them are ignored at once.
Not sure if cleanup is still safe?
The Complete Check Diagnostic determines whether a file can be corrected or needs to be rebuilt.
Start the Diagnostic