86% of finance teams hit an AI hallucination. Yours? 📋

In Partnership with

Taking months to implement FP&A tools should be illegal…

There is a new rising star that is setting the bar for what “time-to-value” should be for FP&A  software. Hint, it’s measured in hours, not months.

Aleph is an AI-native FP&A platform that seamlessly connects your cross-system data, spreadsheets, and strategy at the speed of startups with the power to support enterprises.

You can try out Aleph right now (with your own data) for free. Zero risk with endless upside.

Book a demo.

Three conversations this week with finance leaders revealed the same quiet admission: their teams are using AI tools during the close process without any documented controls over the outputs. The tools are approved, but the governance is not. That gap is where audit risk exists, and it’s growing faster than most CFOs realize because the deployment was discussed months before accountability was addressed.

This issue covers the data behind the AI accuracy problem in finance, a system for closing the governance gap before your auditors discover it, and three articles worth your time.

At first glance, this seems to be a product quality issue. However, a more accurate view is that it stems from a control design problem: teams are deploying AI without a verification framework to catch incorrect outputs. Only 14% of CFOs fully trust AI to produce accurate accounting data on its own, yet those same teams integrate AI into their close process without documented review gates. What you need to do now is simple. List every finance workflow where AI generates an output, and check if there is a documented human review step before that output affects a financial record.

If the answer is no for any of them, that is your first control gap to close.

At the second company, I advised post-exit when a variance flag surfaced three weeks before quarter close. The FP&A lead reviewed it, dismissed it, and moved on. There was no record of the review, no rationale, and no named owner. When the variance resulted in a $4.2M miss, we had nothing to present to the board or auditors about why the flag was overridden. The model had done its job. The governance had not.

When your auditors inquire about how you manage AI-assisted decisions during the close, you provide them with a log listing named owners instead of offering a verbal explanation. This shifts the discussion from a formal finding to just a footnote.

AI is increasingly carrying a share of accounting work, but trust has not kept pace with adoption.

My take: The important number to remember isn't the 97% who want oversight. 69% of CFOs spend most of their time on daily operations rather than strategy. That is the cost of unmanaged AI: you spend your time fixing what the model gets wrong instead of doing the work only you can do. The governance layer doesn't add to the CFO's schedule. It's what ultimately frees it.

The accuracy issue in finance AI is structural, not a prompting problem. LLMs generate probabilistic outputs by design, whereas financial reporting needs the opposite.

My take: Share this article with anyone on your team who believes that better prompts can fix poor AI outputs. The core issue is architecture, not user error. LLMs are inherently probabilistic, but financial data demands deterministic accuracy. CFOs achieving reliable results with finance AI are using systems that restrict output to verified source records. If your vendor cannot verify the specific transaction behind every number in an AI-generated report, that's the discussion you need to have before the next close.

CFOs are sacrificing rapid headcount growth to boost technology investments. Whether the governance infrastructure is enough to make that trade safe remains an unanswered question in the data.

My take: The narrative being built here is that AI is absorbing headcount growth, and CFOs are approving the trade. What the data does not show is whether those organizations have the governance infrastructure to make that trade safely. You can reduce headcount and expand AI coverage at the same time, but only if your controls scale with the change. If they do not, you have traded salary expense for audit risk. These are not equivalent costs.

The most common place I see this break is when an AI-generated journal entry is reviewed in 10 seconds by someone behind on their checklist. The review was done on paper. The control was not.

Can you produce, right now, a complete list of every AI-assisted journal entry from your last close, including who reviewed it and what the disposition was? If not, the system above is your next 30-day project.

Most CFOs are not behind on AI governance because they lack time or tools. They are behind because governance feels like overhead and deployment feels like progress, and the two are being treated as sequential when they are concurrent requirements.

The pattern across companies remains consistent. Finance organizations that implemented AI in 2024 without establishing a control framework are spending 2026 fixing issues; they cannot admit this publicly to their boards. Those who built governance alongside deployment are closing the loop and delivering clean audit reports.

Every week a finance AI tool runs without a documented review gate is a week of control gap accumulating on your balance sheet, even if it never shows up in the numbers. Get ahead of it in Q1 before your auditors surface it in Q3.

Until next edition. — Marcus Reid, CPA.

P.S. For those who have moved an AI deployment into production inside the close or FP&A process: what specific control or governance artifact made your audit committee comfortable enough to let it run? I want to build a short field guide from real answers. Reply directly to this email.