--- title: "Turn an e-TVA difference into a reviewable explanation | R&D COPILOT" lang: en canonical: https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/ content_version: 838ac858e49b6a0f9f702bccad2e54dcb8b863a6b096505b998ac659fb67b25b contact: https://rdcopilot.com/contact/ --- [RDC](https://rdcopilot.com/) [Insights](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/)e-TVA e-TVAHow-to guide # Turn an e-TVA difference into a reviewable explanation An e-TVA difference is a starting point for review, not an explanation. When the only evidence is a screenshot in a chat, the team cannot reliably see who is investigating or whether a suggested cause was confirmed. A structured review record gives the work continuity. By R&D COPILOT6 October 20265 min read In this guide 1. [Give a difference an investigation record](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-1) 2. [Separate observations from hypotheses](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-2) 3. [Organize the investigation around evidence](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-3) 4. [Route actions without losing ownership](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-4) 5. [Make approval and downstream action distinct](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-5) 6. [Test whether another reviewer can follow the reasoning](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-6) 7. [Build the review process around your accountant](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-section-7) [Sources & inspiration](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-differences-review-workflow/#guide-sources) ## Give a difference an investigation record Record the company, comparison run, line or category, observed amounts and the person responsible. Keep the original sources reachable. The accountant needs to know which data was compared before deciding whether timing, classification or missing evidence explains the gap. Keep the sign and unit of the difference explicit. A positive value can mean different things depending on which side was subtracted from the other. Show the two source values next to the gap and preserve the comparison rule, so a colleague can verify the observation before discussing a possible cause. ## Separate observations from hypotheses The amount of a difference is an observation produced by the agreed comparison. A claim that it comes from a timing issue is a hypothesis. Keep these in separate fields so an attractive explanation cannot quietly become an accepted fact. Each hypothesis should identify the records that would support or disprove it. AI can help organize a review note, but the source evidence and arithmetic must remain visible. A generated explanation without supporting records should never close the issue automatically. A case can contain several competing hypotheses. Give each a short status and the next evidence needed, rather than editing one narrative until it appears certain. If two documents explain only part of the amount, record that explained portion and keep the remainder open for investigation. ## Organize the investigation around evidence Show contributing accounting entries, relevant documents and official detail where available. Record the checks performed and their results. If a source provides only aggregate data, the reviewer may need additional records before confirming the cause. ANAF's e-TVA documentation supplies official context. Current applicability and any formal handling requirements should be checked by the responsible specialist. The review workspace can remain useful without hardcoding unverified legal deadlines or assuming every discrepancy requires the same response. Prepare a focused evidence request that states the company, period, document reference and question to answer. The recipient should know whether the reviewer needs a missing file, confirmation of a date or an explanation of a classification. This reduces repeated requests for documents that do not address the actual uncertainty. ## Route actions without losing ownership The accountant may ask purchasing for a missing invoice, an operator for a corrected export or another specialist for interpretation. Link each request to the difference and keep one person responsible for the overall case. When evidence arrives, preserve the earlier hypothesis and show whether it was confirmed, rejected or refined. If source data changes, create a new comparison or explicitly identify the changed version. Closing a task should mean the agreed review is complete, not that someone merely replied to a message. Show dependencies between tasks when one answer is needed before another check can begin. If a purchasing colleague is absent, transfer the request with its context and preserve who now owns it. The accountant coordinating the case should see blocked work separately from work that is ready for review. ## Make approval and downstream action distinct An accepted explanation can be useful for internal understanding without authorizing a change to accounting records. If a correction is needed, create a linked action with its own approval and outcome. This avoids treating a review note as an instruction to modify data. Limit access to the company and records involved. Shared notifications should carry the case reference and task, not a full financial export. Keep the identity of the reviewer and the evidence used at approval so the decision remains understandable later. If the conclusion requires follow-up, record the receiving process and its confirmation reference. The investigation may be complete while a separately approved correction remains pending. Keep both states visible, so closing the explanatory work does not conceal an outstanding operational task or imply that an external action was performed. ## Test whether another reviewer can follow the reasoning Use differences with known causes and include one that remains unresolved. Ask another accountant to read the record and distinguish the observed gap, proposed explanation and confirmed conclusion. They should be able to open the supporting sources without contacting the original reviewer. Measure time spent finding evidence, requests returned for missing context and reopened explanations. Track unresolved amounts separately from explained amounts. A useful system makes uncertainty visible rather than encouraging users to clear the queue with unsupported reasons. Test a plausible but incorrect explanation as well as a correct one. The reviewer should be able to reject it using the attached records and identify what remains unknown. Evaluate whether the interface encourages that distinction, especially when several cases have similar amounts or similar document descriptions. - Verify both source values, the sign and the comparison period. - List each hypothesis and the evidence needed to test it. - Assign missing-document requests without changing case ownership. - Record the confirmed explanation and the unresolved remainder. - Link any corrective action to its separate approval and outcome. ## Build the review process around your accountant RDC can implement difference records, evidence links, task routing and approval history connected to your e-TVA comparison. We agree the categories and decision points with the people responsible for the financial review. Bring redacted discrepancies and the questions your team asks while investigating them. The proposal can define source access, note structure and acceptance checks. The resulting workflow keeps explanations testable and decisions accountable while giving the accountant a practical place to resolve the work. For EU-hosted or company-managed operation, specify who maintains source access, case permissions and the evidence store. Agree how a reviewer hands open work to another accountant and how missing attachments are recovered. These operating responsibilities make the workspace usable beyond the first successfully explained difference. Inside the product ## e-TVA [![VAT reconciliation desk comparing own records and authority amounts.](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-overview-en.png)View full size](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-overview-en.png) VAT reconciliation desk comparing own records and authority amounts. [![VAT reference S-126 with an explanation recorded and the remaining review balance.](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-detail-en.png)View full size](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/product-demos/etva/gallery-detail-en.png) VAT reference S-126 with an explanation recorded and the remaining review balance. Swipe or use the arrows to explore. Image 1 of 2 Follow the references ## Sources & inspiration ### [ConsentDocs](https://devpost.com/software/consentdocs) Devpost project by ILoveBuns Ren Extracted facts with human review. This independently created project is credited as inspiration. The workflow and implementation guidance in this article are RDC’s analysis. - [ANAF: RO e-TVA brochure 2025](https://static.anaf.ro/static/10/Anaf/AsistentaContribuabili_r/BrosuraRoeTVA2025.pdf) Put the guide to work ## Start with your workflow. Tell us what your team needs to do, which systems are involved and where the current process slows down. [Discuss your project](https://rdcopilot.com/contact/?product=etva) [Explore e-TVA](https://etva.rdcopilot.com/en/products/etva/) e-TVA ## Keep exploring. [All guides](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/) Workflow ### [Keep a dated record of the e-TVA data you compared](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-data-snapshot-audit/) Preserve dated e-TVA source files, accounting exports and mapping versions so reviewers can reconstruct an earlier comparison and explain later changes. [Read guide](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-data-snapshot-audit/) Decision guide ### [Compare RO e-TVA data with accounting records line by line](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/) Compare RO e-TVA inputs with accounting records using approved mappings, source-linked totals and explicit exclusions, with practical checks for each comparison. [Read guide](https://rdcopilot.com/insights/etva-prefilled-accounting-comparison/)