This worked case is part of the time write-off review hub.
The hard case: 12 hours, two projects, one code (Illustrative)
Fictional, written for this page. A 140-person engineering consultancy runs two projects for the same client: a warehouse retrofit (project A) and a sister-site study (project B), each with its own budget and purchase order.
A senior engineer spends 12 hours on a structural load review whose results feed both projects. The time tracker lets her pick only one project, so she logs all 12 hours to project A with the narrative "Load review, racking and mezzanine, used for both sites." Nothing she did was wrong. The system simply had no way to record work that served two budgets.
That is what makes it a hard case. The entry is accurate, the narrative is honest, and the project is still over budget for a reason nobody on project A caused.
Decision by decision: who acted and what they wrote down
- The engineer logs the time. Record left: one approved entry of 12 hours on project A, with a narrative that names both sites. Free-text descriptions are a data type of their own, described in time entry narratives.
- Project A's manager proposes a write-off. At month end the hours push the project over budget, so the manager marks all 12 for write-off on the pre-bill. Record left: a pre-bill edit with the proposal, if the system keeps edit history.
- The practice operations head reviews. She reads the narrative, checks project B's scope and confirms the review was required by both. Record left: a reviewer note, often in the billing tool's comments or an email thread.
- She decides a split. 5 hours stay on project A and are billed; 5 hours move to project B and are billed; 2 hours of rework caused by an internal drawing error are written off. Record left: the decision with its reason, attached to the adjustment.
- Finance posts the change. Because the entry is already approved, finance reverses it and posts three replacement lines rather than editing it in place. In Microsoft's project accounting, an adjustment marks the original as Adjusted, creates a reversal and creates a new transaction; a correction journal for approved time works the same way. Record left: the reversed original plus three linked replacements.
- The invoices go out. The client's project leads for A and B each receive an invoice, so 10 of the 12 hours are billed and approved without query. Record left: two invoices and a note filed against the month's billing review.
Timing matters at step 5. Microsoft's documentation says an approved entry that is already on an invoice, even a draft one, can only be pulled back after a corrective invoice fully credits the original. Had this review happened after billing, the trail would also hold a credit note, usually in a different module.
The ledger after review
| Line | Hours | Project | Status after review | What it proves |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original entry | 12 | A | Reversed, kept for history | What was logged and when |
| Pre-bill proposal | 12 | A | Superseded | The first instinct: write it all off |
| Replacement 1 | 5 | A | Billed | Share of work for project A |
| Replacement 2 | 5 | B | Billed | Work moved to the second site's budget |
| Replacement 3 | 2 | A | Written off, reason recorded | Rework the client should not pay for |
The totals reconcile: 5 plus 5 plus 2 equals the original 12. The story, though, lives in the first two rows, which most reports never show.
What the trail shows that an invoice cannot
The value sits between steps 2 and 4: a manager's proposal, a reviewer's reading of context, and a split that neither the time entry nor the invoice shows alone. Lose the reversed original or the reviewer's reason and the history shows three small entries with no story.
That shape, a starting problem, an authorized action and a checked outcome, is what makes exception records useful for AI training and evaluation, as described in exception handling data for AI agents. Procurement teams leave the same pattern in their approvals, covered in procurement approvals and exception workflows. Acquirers read the same lines for margin questions, as the diligence guide on utilization explains.
Recognizing the same pattern at a client
An accountant can spot firms whose history holds cases like this without opening a file. Listen for these signs:
- Shared work across projects. The firm runs several projects per client, and staff sometimes say "the tool only lets me pick one".
- Pre-bill reviews with a named reviewer. A practice operations head, billing partner or controller reads draft bills each month.
- Reasons on adjustments. Write-offs carry a reason code or note, not just an amount.
- Reversals kept. The time tracker or ERP posts reversals rather than overwriting approved entries.
- Years of history in one place. The current system holds several years, or an old one is kept read-only.
Questions to ask the practice operations head, all metadata: Roughly how many entries are adjusted each month? Do pre-bill edits leave a history? Is a reason stored on each write-off? Which system holds the adjustments, and since when? The time write-off system map shows which IDs join the time tracker, ERP and billing.
Who to introduce, and what stays open
The practice operations head knows the records; a managing partner, CFO or COO usually decides whether the firm discusses licensing them. The who-can-license answer for write-off records covers that path. Client engagement letters may limit reuse of project detail, which is why rights are reviewed before anything is proposed.
The introduced firm needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English.
Until SourceX reviews it, nobody knows whether buyers want write-off decisions, what client terms allow, what must be de-identified or whether there is an offer. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions, and the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application. More for outside accountants sits on the page for accountants.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a professional services client keeps the first entry after reversal and a reason on each write-off, register as a partner, check the firm against who qualifies and read the program terms before you introduce the practice operations head.