Chapter 3 - Transforming Numbers

The moment when something doesn’t add up

The work rarely starts with an adjustment.
It starts with an anomaly.
A category in the P&L that behaves differently.
A figure stable for months, and then, suddenly, a break.
100. 100. 100.
Then 150.
The number is comparable.
It fits the framework.
And yet, it raises questions.
If it’s a charge, it’s a problem.
If it’s increasing revenue or decreasing charges, we sometimes tend to dig less deep.
It’s human.
We know what will be challenged.
We anticipate the upcoming questions.
But this difference in treatment is already a signal.

Understanding before correcting

When a variance draws attention, it’s important to understand.
Not to correct automatically.
But to know what the number is really saying.
So we dive into the details.
The accounting entries.
The received invoices.
The various journal entries made in accounting.
The descriptions.
The reconciliations.
This work is rarely smooth.
The details are never easy to read.
We need to reconstruct the path.
Sometimes, the explanation is clear:

• a misclassified entry,

• an invoice assigned to the wrong scope,

• a business reality that does not reflect in the standard reading.

Sometimes, everything is correct.
And this conclusion is also part of the analysis.

The analysis as an investigative task

This investigative work is essential.
But it is neither mechanical,
nor exhaustive.
The volume is too large.
The dimensions too numerous.
The combinations infinite.
So we must choose.
We look at:

• the most visible changes,

• the items most exposed to questions,

• the scopes where a misreading would have the most impact.

These are axes of analysis.
Not a complete coverage.
Each month, we have to start over.

When correcting becomes deciding

After this analysis, a decision must be made.
Not:

Is the number compliant?

But:

What reading enables us to manage?

Leave the number as is.
Or intervene to improve its readability.
This may mean:

• reclassifying an entry to better reflect the business reality,

• isolating an element to avoid a misleading reading,

• temporarily adjusting a presentation to clarify a message.

In all cases, it’s not just a simple technical correction.
It’s a choice of interpretation.

The impossibility of tracking everything

These decisions accumulate.
Some are one-off.
Others become recurrent.
Ideally, each month,
we would need to revisit the readings retained previously,
verify that they remain relevant,
confirm that they still tell the right story.
In practice, this work is done quickly.
With reluctance.
Not because it would be useless,
but because it delays the analysis of the present.
Going back in detail on past readings,
slows down an already constrained cycle.
So we make trade-offs.
We check the essentials.
We secure what will be exposed.
And we move forward.

What moves silently

Gradually, something shifts.
The number no longer rests solely on standardized data.
It also relies on:

• the past analyses,

• the readings already validated,

• the experience of those who know why an adjustment was made.

The number becomes more readable.
But less autonomous.
It holds because someone knows.

When readability depends on interpretation

The adjustments are not structural corrections.
They are not meant to make numbers comparable.
This work has already been done.
They serve to make the numbers readable,
understandable,
manageable.
But they introduce a new dependency.
The understanding of the number
no longer solely lives within the system.
It begins to live in the analyses
and in the people who carry them.
The number is ready to be aggregated.
But the analytical path is already starting to narrow.