Find out what your Xero file would tell an accountant.

A structured review of a Xero file's condition rather than its results. It tests whether the numbers can be relied on: whether bank and card balances agree to statements, whether control accounts tie to their subledgers, whether suspense accounts are clear, whether coding is consistent, whether every balance sheet line is explainable, who has access, and whether periods are being locked and reports published. It's the review an advisor runs before taking on a file, and it typically takes about an hour.

Mostly yes. The mechanical checks: balances against statements, control account tie-outs, suspense balances, feed currency, lock dates and user access, are all self-service, and they catch most problems. Several checks need advisor-level access, particularly the assurance dashboard items covering manually deleted statement lines, manually reconciled transactions and duplicate supplier bank details; if you don't have advisor rights, your accountant or bookkeeper does.

The checks that genuinely benefit from an outside reviewer are the judgment ones about coding accuracy, since it's difficult to spot an error you made yourself: the reasoning that produced it still seems reasonable.

Annually as a baseline. Sooner in six situations: before any funding or sale process, since lenders and investors will find what you didn't; whenever bookkeeping changes hands, in both directions; before year-end work begins, because issues found in advance cost far less than the same issues found under filing pressure; after the business changes shape, such as a new entity, revenue line or first employee; when the numbers feel wrong without an operational explanation; and before engaging a new bookkeeping provider, so the quote reflects the file's real condition.

Six findings warrant immediate attention. Deleted bank statement lines, which means real bank activity was removed from the record. Two suppliers sharing bank account details, the classic payables fraud signature. A former bookkeeper or ex-employee retaining access. A bank feed that stopped months ago, meaning every report since is incomplete. One person controlling entering, approving, paying and reconciling. And any material balance sheet line nobody can explain, which makes every report built on it unreliable.

Almost always because a journal was posted directly to the accounts payable control account rather than through a bill. The subledger: the aged payables report, only knows about bills, so a direct journal moves the control account without moving the subledger, and the two diverge permanently until corrected. The same applies to accounts receivable. Comparing the aged detail report to the balance sheet figure is a fast, high-value check, and any difference is a real error rather than a timing quirk.

That transactions are sitting somewhere other than where they belong, so every report affected by those transactions is wrong. Suspense, clearing and "Ask My Accountant" accounts are meant to be temporary queues cleared each month. A balance carried for months means the queue isn't being worked, and the longer it persists the harder it gets to resolve, because the documentation and the memory of what each item was both fade. The target balance is always zero.

Look at the most recent transaction date for each connected account. If an account's latest entry is weeks or months old while the account is still in use, the feed has stopped. Feeds can expire or require re-authorization and don't always announce it, which is why this is worth checking weekly rather than discovering at year end. Note also that a feed dropping out is invisible on the reconcile screen. If transactions were never delivered, they were never in the queue to be missed.

Yes. Advisor is the highest access level and carries the ability to set and remove lock dates, use bulk recoding tools, and change financial settings. Anyone with it can effectively reopen closed periods and alter historical transactions. It should be limited to people who genuinely need it, reviewed whenever someone leaves, and treated as a meaningful permission rather than a convenience. Review the full user list at the same time, since former staff and previous bookkeepers retaining access is common and rarely noticed.

Address anything on the urgent list first: access still held by former staff, deleted statement lines, duplicate supplier bank details, a stopped bank feed. Those either involve money moving without oversight or mean current reports are wrong.

After that, sequence rather than attacking everything at once: fix the chart of accounts if it's structurally wrong, complete any missing data, then correct coding, then clear suspense balances, then publish and lock. And identify why the file drifted, a cleanup that fixes data without addressing the cause buys about a year.

Substantially. Much of what a CPA charges for at year end is reconstruction: working out what transactions were, chasing missing documentation, resolving balances nobody can explain. A file that reconciles, ties out and locks each month arrives as something to review rather than something to rebuild. The same applies to any due diligence, clean books shorten the process and reduce the number of questions that turn into negotiating points.