What the First 90 Days With Aurgus Looks Like
Last updated: November 11, 2026
Before the first invoice, every new client asks the same question: what happens next? The first 90 days are structured around four phases: program mapping (days 1–14), first governed close (days 15–30), settlement reconciliation (days 31–60), and close methodology documentation (days 61–90). The sequence is defined. The purpose is to remove the procedural unknown so the decision can be made on the actual question: does the problem you have match the problem we solve?
Days 1–14: Program Mapping
What we do
The first two weeks are structured around a single objective: document every active vendor rebate program and map each one against the current accrual methodology. We collect program terms — rate tiers, volume thresholds, effective dates, tier resets — directly from the program agreements. We identify how the current accrual estimate is built for each program: whether it derives from program terms, from prior settlement averages, or from an informal estimate the finance team has carried forward. We document the current process as it actually operates.
What you do
Share program documentation: vendor agreements (or the relevant rebate addenda), prior accrual workbooks if they exist, and any existing close checklist. We schedule one working session for the program review — estimated 60 to 90 minutes depending on program count. The goal is to understand the current state accurately.
What the deliverable looks like
At the end of day 14, the deliverable is a program map: each active rebate program documented with its terms, the current accrual methodology for that program, and the specific documentation gaps the governed process will close. The program map is the working reference for every subsequent close cycle and the first document that makes the rebate accrual process visible in one place.
Days 15–30: First Governed Close
What we do
The first close cycle runs against the program map produced in days 1–14. Each active program produces a dated calculation trace: the volume assumption used (actual or estimated), the applicable rate tier at that volume level, the program terms in effect at the calculation date, and the resulting accrual estimate. The calculation trace is not a summary. It is a record — every input is documented, every step is explicit, and the trace is dated so the methodology in effect at close is preserved exactly as it existed.
What you do
Review the calculation traces against the methodology your team applied in prior periods. For any program where the governed calculation produces a different accrual estimate than the prior methodology, document the basis for the difference. The difference may be technical — a rate tier that was misread, a volume assumption carried forward without update — or it may reflect a judgment call the prior methodology made differently. Both are valid findings. The purpose is to establish a documented baseline for the governed methodology going forward, not to identify errors in prior practice.
What the deliverable looks like
The first governed close package contains accrual calculation traces for each active program, plus a variance note for any program where the governed methodology produced a different estimate than prior practice. The variance note documents the amount of the difference, the source, and the resolution — whether the governed calculation is adopted as the new standard or whether a modification to the governed methodology is warranted based on program-specific facts.
Days 31–60: Settlement Reconciliation
What we do
When a vendor settlement arrives, we reconcile the settlement amount against the accrual estimate that preceded it. The reconciliation documents the variance: the original accrual estimate, the settled amount, the difference, and the source of the difference. Sources fall into a defined taxonomy: volume assumption error (actual volume differed from the assumption used), rate tier miscalculation (the wrong tier was applied given actual volume), program term change mid-period (the vendor modified terms after the accrual was calculated), or accrual methodology difference (the governed methodology and the vendor’s settlement calculation used different bases). Each source has a different implication for the methodology going forward.
What you do
Share settlement documentation as it arrives. For each settlement cycle, we schedule one review session — typically 30 to 60 minutes — to walk through the variance reconciliation. If a settlement arrives outside the normal cycle, flag it and we will reconcile it in the next review session.
What the deliverable looks like
The settlement reconciliation record for each program contains the original accrual estimate, the settled amount, the variance amount, and the documented source of the variance. For programs where the variance source is a volume assumption error, the record also documents the revised assumption methodology for the next accrual period. This record is the evidence chain that connects what was estimated to what was received.
Days 61–90: Close Methodology Documentation
What we do
The final phase produces the governed close methodology documentation: the written record of the accrual process as executed in days 15 through 60. It covers the calculation methodology for each program type, the program term snapshot policy (how program terms are captured at the calculation date and how mid-period changes are handled), and the settlement reconciliation workflow. This is the document an auditor receives when they ask how the rebate accruals were calculated. It references the actual calculation traces and reconciliation records produced in prior phases — not a summary, but a record.
What you do
Review the close methodology document and confirm it accurately reflects the close process as executed. If the executed process differed in any respect from what the document describes, the review session is the place to reconcile that difference. The final document should describe the process that was actually followed.
What the deliverable looks like
The close methodology document is the governing framework for rebate accrual calculation at your organization. It describes the methodology, references the supporting records, and is structured to be legible to an auditor who was not present for the close. It is defensible without reconstruction — the records it references already exist, the methodology is explicit, and the variance history is documented.
What 90 Days Does Not Produce
The scope of the first 90 days is specific. Three things fall outside it, and being clear about that up front is part of the governed process.
It does not produce a historical restatement of prior periods. The close methodology documentation covers the accrual process from the first governed close forward. Prior period accruals are not retroactively documented. If prior period documentation is a requirement — for a pending audit, a restatement, or an acquisition review — that is a separate engagement and should be scoped separately.
It does not produce a vendor rebate management system. Aurgus governs the accounting function: accrual calculation, settlement reconciliation, and methodology documentation. Program negotiation, performance tracking, and vendor relationship management are upstream of the accounting function and are not part of the scope.
It does not produce a CPA opinion on the accrual methodology. Aurgus produces the documentation; your CPA uses it. The governed close methodology provides your CPA with a documented process to review. It does not replace that review.
Next Steps
If you need to make the case internally before moving forward, see How to Make the Internal Case for Governed Rebate Accounting.
If you want to understand the fit criteria before committing, the specific questions Aurgus uses to determine whether the engagement is a fit are documented at /answers/aurgus-fit-criteria/.
If you want to understand what the diagnostic conversation looks like before a decision is made, that process is documented at /answers/what-happens-after-you-reply/.
The Aurgus accrual methodology — the specific calculation approach the governed close uses — is documented at /answers/aurgus-methodology/.
If you want to understand whether the gap between your current ERP output and a governed accrual is worth closing, the rebate gap assessment is at /erp-rebate-gap-assessment/.
Pricing is at /pricing/.
When the evaluation is complete and you are ready, the next steps are at If You Are Ready, Here Is What to Do Next.