Only if each stated cause traces to evidence. AI can draft from verified figures and supplied notes. An explanation without support should stay a question, not a conclusion.
Can’t AI just write the commentary?
It can write something that sounds right. Sounding right is the problem.
A fictional example: the variance is clear, the cause is not.
- Budget expense
- CA$100,000.
- Actual expense
- CA$115,000.
- Difference
- CA$15,000, or 15% against budget.
- “Higher volume caused it”
- A hypothesis. These figures don’t establish it.
1. Trace a movement to its support.
Confirm the comparison. Same period, entity, account scope, currency and sign convention.
Identify contributions. Use underlying transactions and confirmed business notes. Avoid counting overlapping explanations twice.
Show what is open. Separate supported amounts, hypotheses and the portion still awaiting explanation.
Practical check: Ask the relevant owner to confirm context the records don’t contain.
2. Write a better drafting brief.
The instruction. Draft commentary from the attached approved figures and notes, and reference the support for each explanation.
When support is missing. List the question and the owner who needs to answer it. Don’t invent a driver to complete the story.
Review. Check the arithmetic, references, timing claims and any proposed action before sharing.
Practical check: Instructions support a process. They don’t guarantee accuracy.
3. Before the pack goes out.
Known. Which amounts and causes are supported?
Unresolved. What is still being investigated, and by whom?
Implication. Does the evidence justify changing the forecast or taking an action, or only asking a better question?
Practical check: Don’t turn an unconfirmed explanation into a management decision.
Read more: A Finance AI Pilot Your Controller Can Evaluate · Why Does Month-End Close Take So Long? Find the Wait First
The example is fictional. This is general guidance, not accounting advice.