Independent review

The Independent Finance Reviewer receives an instruction in review with its current revision, requested amount, counterparty and supporting documents. The reviewer checks the instruction against its account lines and the organization’s authority before deciding. An approval is recorded as a decision with a reason, time and reviewer. The decision is attached to the instruction version being examined. A preparer cannot turn their own submission into an independent approval.

A revision-specific decision is useful when a request changes late. Suppose an analyst submits an instruction for a particular amount, and an attachment is replaced after the reviewer opens the case. The reviewer should reassess the current revision. The older decision remains part of the history, but it does not silently authorize changed banking details.

• Review queue. Instructions in review show the owner, counterparty, amount and revision needed for a decision.
• Decision record. Each approval, rejection or return captures the source revision, reason, operation key and reviewer.
• Result. The instruction status conveys whether a reviewed request is authorized or rejected.

The Operations Analyst prepares the package. The Independent Finance Reviewer decides whether the requested instruction is fit to advance. The Auditor can later trace the decision to its parent instruction and the person who made it. The App Administrator may maintain team membership, but administrative access alone should not be treated as financial approval authority.

Agree what the reviewer checks before approval: organization scope, counterparty eligibility note, amount, account direction and supporting attachments. Define how a returned request reaches the analyst and how a changed request is resubmitted. Keep the decision reason useful enough that a later reviewer can understand why an instruction advanced or stopped. Decide who reviews an exception when the original approver is unavailable; the substitute still needs independent authority.

Use the operation key and expected revision consistently when the same action is retried. A repeated request should point back to the original recorded effect. A different decision on a changed revision calls for a fresh review. The review record should not be replaced just because the instruction later reaches the provider.

Have an analyst submit an instruction and an independent reviewer approve it. Check that the decision names the reviewed revision and that the instruction becomes authorized. Next, have the analyst try to approve their own request; the decision must be refused. Change the request after approval and confirm that the prior decision does not authorize the new revision. Finally, reject a separate request and retain the reason and reviewer for audit.

• Instructions in review — Open the current instruction package before deciding.
• Review decision register — Trace decisions by revision, date and reviewer.
• Screening cases awaiting decision — See linked cases submitted for a separate disposition.

Use instruction review for the decision sequence and completion verification for a recorded action whose effects need checking.