A write-off review asks one question about a block of hours: bill them, move them to the project that benefited, or absorb them. The answer depends on project context the time entry rarely carries. That is why the review leaves a useful record, and why it breaks so easily when a firm changes its time tracker or ERP.
What a time write-off review leaves behind
Three record families, each owned by a different person. Together they explain a decision; apart, each is routine bookkeeping.
- Time entries. Hours, date, timekeeper, task code and the narrative the timekeeper wrote. The time entry narratives page covers why the free text matters.
- Project context. The project, phase and budget the hours were charged to, the fee arrangement, and any note that the work served a second project or a rework.
- Approved adjustments. The pre-bill proposal, the reviewer's reason, and the posted result: billed, moved to another project, or written off.
The adjustment is where history is most fragile. In Microsoft's project accounting, for example, an adjustment does not overwrite the original. It marks the original transaction as Adjusted, creates a reversal and creates a new transaction with the change. A correction journal for approved time works the same way, reversing the original actuals alongside the corrected lines. Those three linked lines are the review. A migration that loads only the net result keeps the right total and loses the decision.
Invoicing adds a second constraint. Microsoft documents that an approved entry can be recalled with a reason, but an entry already invoiced, or sitting on a draft invoice, cannot be recalled unless a corrective invoice issues a full credit on the original. So late write-offs leave a credit note as well as a time adjustment, often in a different module.
Which records a timekeeping cutover tends to drop
Many cutovers load open projects and opening balances, then leave closed history in the old system. The table shows one illustrative cutover scope and the question that settles each line.
Illustrative: a fictional 180-person engineering consultancy moving from a standalone time tracker to a new ERP. The scope below is invented to show the pattern, not taken from a real project plan.
| Record class | Typical home | In this cutover scope | Question for the firm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open projects and budgets | Time tracker, ERP | Carried over | Are closed projects carried, or only open ones? |
| Net hours by project | Time tracker | Carried over as balances | Do entry IDs survive, or only totals? |
| Client invoices and credit notes | Billing module | Carried over | Does each credit point to the entries it reversed? |
| Pre-bill edits | Time tracker draft bills | Not carried | Do edits leave a history, or overwrite the entry? |
| Reversed original lines | Time tracker, project accounting | Not carried | Will Adjusted and reversal lines move, or only replacements? |
| Write-off reasons | Adjustment notes, email | Not carried | Is a reason code or note stored on each adjustment? |
The bottom three rows hold the reasoning. They are also the rows a project team most often leaves behind, because nobody needs them to send the next invoice.
Inventory checklist for the practice operations head
Ask these questions without opening a single file. The controller can usually answer the system questions; the practice operations head knows how reviews actually happen.
- ☐Which record classes exist: entries with narratives, pre-bill edits, write-off requests, reason codes, adjustments, credit notes.
- ☐First and last year for each class, including any previous time tracker kept for audit.
- ☐Rough volume: reviewed entries or adjustments per month, estimated by the firm.
- ☐Whether pre-bill edits leave a history or overwrite the entry.
- ☐Whether reversed originals and replacement lines move to the new platform, or only net hours.
- ☐Whether entry IDs survive the move, so adjustments still point to their originals.
- ☐Where reviewers discussed disputed hours: comments in the tool, email, or meeting notes.
- ☐The real deadline: read-only date, license end, or vendor deletion of the old tenant.
- ☐Who decides retention, and which engagement letters limit reuse of client project detail.
Never suggest keeping records beyond the firm's retention policy or client terms, and never export anything yourself. If reviewers argued over write-offs by email, the email archive versus backup page covers why a backup may not be searchable later.
Finding the real access deadline
The go-live date of the new platform is rarely the deadline that matters. The old system usually stays readable for a while, then becomes read-only, then disappears when the license or the vendor's retention period ends. Ask for each date from the contract or the project plan, and write down who confirmed it.
A firm that already reviews utilization and realization will often know these dates, because realization reporting depends on the same adjustment history. Owners who worry about the effort of a licensing discussion can read how much management time data licensing takes. Only a documented read-only or deletion date is real urgency; a vague plan to switch tools next year is not.
Who can authorize a discussion, and what stays unknown
The practice operations head knows the records; a managing partner, CFO or COO usually decides whether the firm discusses licensing them. Client engagement letters may limit reuse of project detail, which is one reason data 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.
Before review, nobody knows whether there is dataset demand for these records, what client terms allow, what must be de-identified, or what the firm would be offered. 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. Accountants can find more on the accountants page, and other sectors are on the industries hub.
Go deeper on time write-off review
- Time write-off review exception examples: worked cases of disputed hours traced from entry to decision.
- Time write-off review records across systems: a map of the IDs that join the time tracker, ERP and billing.
- Who can license time write-off review records: a short answer on which firm leader to introduce.
- Time write-off review referral brief template: a fill-in brief for the introduction itself.
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 the firm's adjustments still point back to their original entries and the old time tracker has a documented read-only date, register as a partner, check the firm against who qualifies, and read the program terms and reward rules before sending the note.