Confidence in a report comes from checking that the relevant data arrived, was assigned correctly and agrees with the expected source totals. A successful import is one part of this review.
Confirm the scope and reporting cycle
Start with the property, source system, business date, period and measure in question. Check the expected reporting cycle. Yesterday’s actuals imported today may be normal; an old timestamp is meaningful only in relation to what was expected.
Distinguish the time a page was opened from a source import timestamp or a forecast update. A screenshot also represents the state when it was taken, not a live completeness check.
Check import status
Use the available import-status information to establish whether relevant data is complete, pending or reported as failed. An empty result does not prove that every required integration exists or that all figures have arrived.
Where status information is unavailable, describe that limitation and check the source or integration owner. Avoid interpreting a technical lookup failure as “nothing is missing.”
Check mapping and reconciliation
Unmapped items can explain why source data is absent from a report. However, “no missing mappings” does not prove that existing mappings are correct.
For the affected item, check its destination, inclusion rules and the reporting category with an authorised administrator. If source totals and PMI totals differ, compare the same property, business dates, currency and accounting basis. Tax treatment, adjustments and report scope may also need to be aligned.
A complete investigation may require information from the source system that is not available in PIA. Preserve a concise record of the item, expected value, actual value and period so the next person can reproduce the difference.
Check ignored accounts as well as missing mappings
An unmapped account has not yet been assigned. An ignored account has been deliberately excluded. An existing mapping may also point to an incorrect destination. These are different states and require different checks.
For disputed revenue, review the relevant mapped, unmapped and ignored accounts with an authorised administrator. An empty missing-mappings result does not inspect every ignored account or prove that the remaining mappings are correct. Some source items should be excluded, so do not map every ignored item automatically. Confirm the treatment against the property’s revenue and statistical definitions.
See How to map accounts for the mapping workflow. Reconcile the same revenue basis across PMI, the PMS and accounting reports; differences in business dates, tax, adjustments or included accounts must be resolved before comparing totals.
Investigate departmental hours without assuming the cause
Low or missing hours do not prove that employees clocked into the wrong department. Check the TKS source totals and department codes, the imported period, mapping destinations, transfers and any manual adjustments.
Compare the property total as well as departmental totals. A matching property total with a departmental difference is a reason to inspect assignment or transfer handling, but it is not conclusive proof. A missing property total can require an import or source-data check. Avoid correcting the same hours both in the source and through a manual adjustment without reconciling the result.
Use TKS mapping guidance and the source records to establish the explanation. Name a department or person as responsible only when the evidence and agreed ownership support it.
Align reports before reconciling them
When reports disagree, record the exact metric, selected period, currency, filters and comparison dataset. Distinguish submitted values from saved drafts and static comparisons from SMART-adjusted references. A different KPI percentage does not necessarily mean the underlying budget differs.
Check available refresh information and then investigate any remaining difference. Matching settings do not rule out a data problem; a discrepancy needs a supported explanation.
Record the evidence and choose the next action
Keep the following information together so the issue can be reproduced:
- Property, department, source system and affected report line or account.
- Business date and reporting period, plus currency, tax treatment and other relevant inclusion rules.
- Expected source value, PMI value and the difference on the same basis.
- Relevant import status and timestamp, missing-mapping result and any explicit error or warning.
- Source report or file reference, existing mapping destination and the person or team following up.
If an expected delivery has failed or is overdue, ask the integration owner to resolve it through the normal process. Recheck the affected dates and totals after the corrected import; a successful retry alone does not establish that the disputed value is right.
If an item is unmapped or assigned to the wrong destination, ask an authorised administrator to review the mapping and any required reprocessing. Reconcile the affected totals afterward. If imports and mappings look correct but a difference remains, ask the controller to reconcile source and PMI totals before using the disputed figure for a staffing or financial decision.
Make a bounded conclusion
A useful conclusion is: “The relevant import is reported complete and the missing-mapping check returned no items. The disputed breakfast line still needs its existing mapping and source total checked.”
This tells the user what has been verified without claiming that every financial figure is correct. A controller should resolve material unexplained differences before treating the affected figures as a reliable basis for decisions.
Ask PIA a focused question
“For this property and reporting date, check the available import and missing-mapping information. Explain what those checks establish and what remains unverified about these figures.”
Supply the specific line or difference where possible. When further investigation is needed, follow the normal support process and include the evidence already gathered.