Microsoft Dynamics 365 · Finance & Operations · Business Central
A rule is followed exactly as far as its execution is measured.
The accounting system shows the result of an operation but never answers whether the rule was followed. The continuous compliance-control agent from Master Development closes that gap in Microsoft Dynamics 365: it checks every operation against your internal norms, finds violations before they turn into losses, and makes compliance a fact confirmed by data rather than a matter of trust in whoever executed it.
agent · shelf-life-control · d365 F&O
- 09:02:14SO-4471okshelf-life82% left · customer min 70%
09:02:14SO-4472findingshelf-life64% left · customer min 70%
- What
- SO-4472: batch LOT 2287 has 64% shelf life left; this customer requires at least 70%.
- Why
- The batch was picked by availability; the customer-specific minimum was not applied at reservation.
- Who
- Order desk · reservation step
- Action
- Re-reserve from LOT 2301 (91%), or attach the customer's approval from KAM thread #A19 before release.
Sources
- D365 sales line · batch expiry fact
- Customer master · min shelf life fact
- KAM e-mail thread #A19 claim
- 09:02:15SO-4472okemailcustomer approval found · KAM thread #A19
09:02:16SO-4478findingbatchFEFO skipped · LOT 2211 older in stock
- What
- SO-4478: LOT 2240 reserved while the older LOT 2211 of the same item is still in stock.
- Why
- The FEFO rule was bypassed by a manual reservation.
- Who
- Warehouse · manual reservation by WH-03
- Action
- Swap to LOT 2211 before picking; if intentional, record the reason on the order.
Sources
- D365 inventory batches fact
- Reservation journal fact
- 09:02:17SO-4480okshelf-life88% left · customer min 60%
- 09:02:17summaryokshelf-life5 orders · 3 ok · 2 findings
agent · desadv-vs-order · EDI · 3PL
- 10:15:02PO-88213okDESADV100 of 100 · matches order
10:15:02PO-88214findingDESADV96 of 100 · 3PL report says 100
- What
- PO-88214: the EDI despatch advice lists 96 units; the 3PL daily report says 100 were shipped.
- Why
- Two sources disagree. The DESADV comes from the WMS scan; the report is compiled by hand.
- Who
- 3PL account manager · Logistics lead
- Action
- Hold the invoice at 96 units; ask the 3PL for scan data on the missing 4 before accepting the report.
Sources
- EDI DESADV fact
- D365 sales order fact
- 3PL daily report claim
10:15:03PO-88215findingDESADVno message · shipped 26h ago
- What
- PO-88215: shipped 26 hours ago according to the WMS; no despatch advice has arrived.
- Why
- The message never arrived — an integration failure or it was never sent. Nothing inside D365 flags an absent record.
- Who
- Integration owner · EDI provider
- Action
- Request a resend from the provider; the customer cannot receive the goods without the advice.
Sources
- WMS shipment confirmation fact
- EDI provider inbox · no message fact
- 10:15:04PO-88216okDESADV40 of 40 · matches order
- 10:15:04summaryokDESADV4 shipments · 2 ok · 2 findings
agent · tax-gateway · d365 F&O · e-invoicing
- 11:40:07INV-30911okregistrationregistered · day 2 of 5
11:40:07INV-30917blockedregistrationnot sent · 6h left in legal window
- What
- INV-30917 has not been submitted; the statutory registration window closes in 6 hours.
- Why
- The invoice was posted on Friday evening; the submission batch runs on Monday.
- Who
- Accounts receivable · today
- Action
- Submit manually now. Release to the customer stays blocked until the gateway confirms — after the deadline this cannot be corrected.
Sources
- D365 invoice journal fact
- Tax gateway status fact
- 11:40:08INV-30920okregistrationregistered · day 1 of 5
11:40:09INV-30924findingregistrationrejected by gateway · code 4102
- What
- INV-30924 was rejected by the gateway with code 4102 (VAT number format).
- Why
- The customer master holds an outdated VAT ID.
- Who
- Master data owner
- Action
- Correct the VAT ID and resubmit; 3 days remain in the window.
Sources
- Gateway response 4102 fact
- Customer master · VAT ID fact
- 11:40:09summaryokregistration4 invoices · 2 ok · 1 blocked · 1 finding
agent · wms-reconciliation · d365 F&O · WMS
- 06:00:114410-Bokon-hand1,240 = 1,240 WMS
06:00:114412-Afindingon-hand1,240 vs 1,180 WMS · −60
- What
- Item 4412-A: D365 shows 1,240 on hand, the 3PL WMS shows 1,180 — 60 units lost between the systems.
- Why
- The difference appeared after yesterday's picking wave; no adjustment journal was posted.
- Who
- 3PL warehouse · Inventory controller
- Action
- Request the WMS movement log for the item; post an adjustment only after a confirmed count.
Sources
- D365 on-hand fact
- WMS stock export fact
- 3PL explanation claim
06:00:124415-Cfindingon-hand0 vs 35 WMS · +35
- What
- Item 4415-C: 35 units sit in the WMS that D365 does not know about.
- Why
- A return was received at the warehouse without a return order in D365.
- Who
- Customer service · return order
- Action
- Create the return order so the stock becomes sellable and the credit note can be issued.
Sources
- WMS receipt fact
- D365 return orders · none fact
- 06:00:14summaryokon-hand4,812 SKUs · 4,810 match · 2 differences
Why sampling and standard checks are not enough
Sampling misses what repeats
A person checks what there is time for: large amounts, familiar problem items, totals. A deviation within tolerance gets waved through — correctly, each time. The same deviation repeating week after week is a process defect that costs money continuously, and a sample cannot see repetition: it has no memory of yesterday. The agent checks every operation and keeps the history, so a systemic violation becomes visible while it is still systemic, not when it has become a year-end write-off.
The system cannot see what was never entered
Every standard check asks whether a record is correct. None asks whether the record exists at all. An order lost in a failed integration raises no error. A document nobody entered breaks no rule. An obligation never invoiced appears in no receivables report. Such losses surface from the counterparty or at the annual reconciliation — when they can no longer be fixed. Only a reconciliation against an external, independent source finds a missing record. The agent does it daily.
The party that deviated is usually the source of data about it
Data on a contractor's work comes from the contractor. Data on entry accuracy comes from the person who entered it. The reason for a deviation is chosen by whoever it may be attributed to. Control built on self-reporting does not reveal systematic distortion — it reproduces it. For every check the agent uses at least two independent sources and separates a confirmed fact from one party's claim. The management conversation changes: not about anyone's good faith, but about a specific line with specific figures.
What the company gets
Compliance you can measure
Every rule becomes a measurable quantity. For any operation it is known whether the norm was followed and, if not, by whom and at which step. The regulation stops being a document everyone signed and nobody checks.
Systematic violations, separated from noise
A single deviation is an operational question; a repeating one is a process defect. The agent separates the two statistically and shows patterns invisible in any single day: a persistent skew in deviation causes, regular failures at one point, deadlines slowly drifting past the norm. Fixing a systemic defect stops future losses; reviewing a single case only recovers its cost.
Errors that have already cost money
Much of the control works retrospectively, on data already accumulated. Results appear before anything changes in how people work: lost documents, uninvoiced deliveries, stuck stock, overdue obligations. The project's case is proven with facts, not a forecast.
Lower regulatory and contractual risk
Deadlines set by law or contract are tracked by countdown: the agent shows not how much time has passed but how much remains before consequences. A breach is prevented, not recorded after the fact.
Evidence for working with contractors
Accumulated statistics on execution quality — accuracy, timeliness, share of deviations — turn the conversation with a counterparty from an exchange of impressions into a review of measured figures for the period. Grounds for revising contract terms and for substantiated claims.
How it works
Independent measurement
Each check relies on at least two sources, one of which the checked party does not control. A deviation confirmed by one source only is marked as a claim, not a fact.
Control along the chain, not by document
Operations are checked as transitions of one quantity between stages; the sum of all states must equal the origin. A broken identity means the quantity vanished between steps — and this check needs no trust in any participant.
Blocking only where the error is irreversible
Full control must not stop work. An operation is blocked in one case only: when the error could not be corrected later — an expiring legal deadline, an irreversible shipment, loss of fitness. Everything else is detected after the fact with targeted escalation.
No signal without an addressee
For each deviation the agent answers four questions: what happened, why, who is responsible, what to do. Without the fourth, the notification is not sent. This protects against the surest way to devalue control — a stream of messages nobody opens.
The decision stays with a person
The agent does not close violations on its own from indirect evidence. It finds the grounds, presents them to a person and records the confirmation. The costs are asymmetric: a missed approval costs minutes; a violation legalised automatically costs money and trust in the whole control system.
Control checks itself
A signal left unhandled is escalated like the original violation. Coverage is verified separately: changes in master data, new employees and new counterparties must not silently drop out of scope.
Where it applies
The agent runs on top of the accounting system and external data sources without replacing them or requiring a process redesign.
Accounting core
Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations and Business Central; other ERP systems.
Document exchange
EDI, integrations with providers and contractors.
External confirmations
Warehouse and transport systems, counterparty confirmations, regulatory receipts.
Unstructured sources
Business correspondence, scanned documents, attachments in arbitrary formats.
Typical control areas: customer contract terms, completeness of order intake and processing, actual versus planned execution, contractor performance, regulatory deadlines, daily data reconciliation between systems.
Implementation
Retrospective measurement
On data already accumulated we check whether violations exist and how large they are. Needs no implementation and gives a factual answer before the project decision.
Control points without changes
Checks that work on existing data go live first. First results within a few weeks.
Core loop
Message reconciliation between systems, verification of internal rules, full daily data reconciliation.
Unstructured data
Correspondence, scans, free-form documents. Tuned to the company's language and specifics.
Perimeter expansion
Remaining channels, sites and contractors are connected.
Questions we get on the first call
Do we need to change processes or retrain staff?
No. The agent works with data the system already accumulates and asks nothing extra of people. Where a regulation requires a formal trace that staff do not leave, the agent builds the missing link itself and presents it for confirmation.
Won't control turn into a flood of notifications?
Each deviation is addressed to the person who can act on it and comes with a specific action. Deviations explained by the process are filtered out by rules. Unhandled signals are escalated — control cannot quietly stop working.
Does the agent replace internal audit?
No. It takes the exhaustive checking off audit's hands and leaves it the investigation and conclusions. Audit gets full coverage instead of a sample and evidence instead of a reconstruction of events.
How fast do results appear?
First findings come from the retrospective measurement, before implementation. First working control points — within a few weeks, when they rely on data already in the system.
What if a contractor violated a rule and the contract has no penalties?
The agent accumulates measured statistics on execution quality. It becomes the basis for introducing standards into the contract at the next revision — a precondition for recovery, not the recovery itself.
Send us one regulation you wish was actually followed.
We will tell you on the call whether an agent can enforce it, and a retrospective measurement will show whether it is being broken today.