Reconcile historical investment records into net-return attribution

Why use this

1. Investment statements, tax records and fee notices describe different parts of performance. Combining their totals without a clear method can confuse contributions with gains, mix tax years with calendar years or allocate tax costs to the wrong holdings.

2. This job could produce a transparent historical analysis whose assumptions are inspectable before anyone relies on the result. A reconciliation bridge from source balances and cash flows to reported returns would help a financial reviewer locate discrepancies instead of trusting a polished net figure.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Connect historical records and explain mismatches while keeping calculation choices explicit.

Simpler alternative

Use brokerage performance reports when their methodology and coverage meet the review need.

Unsuitable when

The user expects investment recommendations, tax conclusions or guaranteed calculation accuracy.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Historical records

   Owner

   Account owner

   Minimum scope

   Authorized statements, cash flows, fees and relevant tax summaries

   Quality check

   Align account identifiers, periods, currencies and corrected statements.

2. Name

   Calculation specification

   Owner

   Financial reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Return convention, cash-flow timing and approved fee/tax allocation assumptions

   Quality check

   Distinguish observed amounts from estimated allocations.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Work on scoped local copies under a reviewed plan; keep any external data request separately approved.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: local privacy enforcement, file parsing, market-data access and calculation-library compatibility.

External actions requiring approval

1. Uploading financial records, cloud escalation, contacting advisers or changing financial accounts.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Reconciled historical workbook with source references, cash-flow bridge, method notes and unresolved differences.

Critical checks

1. Contributions and withdrawals are not classified as investment gains.

2. Fee and tax effects are not counted twice across statement and return records.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A year-end contribution is treated as portfolio growth.

   Why it matters

   The reported return can be materially overstated.

   Proposed response

   Separate external cash flows and apply the reviewer-approved timing method.

2. Signal

   Tax from unrelated income is allocated to investments.

   Why it matters

   The net-return estimate may misstate investment economics.

   Proposed response

   Mark the allocation unresolved and ask the financial reviewer for an appropriate basis.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Agree methodology and reconcile opening balances across accounts.

Ongoing review

1. Review unexplained differences and document every assumption revision.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: professional review cost, data completeness and calculation uncertainty.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Synthetic statements include a deposit, a separately charged fee and a tax total covering investment and noninvestment income.

Acceptance checks

1. The deposit is excluded from gains.

2. The mixed tax total remains unallocated until an explicit basis is supplied.

Stop conditions

1. Cloud transmission or an unsupported financial assumption is necessary.

Limits

1. The proposed analysis describes historical records only; it is not advice to transact or evidence of future performance.