NAV DATA VALIDATION

    Microsoft Dynamics NAV Data Validation — Reconciled to the Cent

    Post-load microsoft dynamics nav data validation engine. G/L Entry parity, Customer/Vendor Ledger parity, Item Ledger parity, inventory valuation parity, open-document parity, dimension/COA aggregate parity. Audit-signed evidence pack at every load.

    8 classes
    Reconciliation coverage
    Zero delta
    G/L pass criterion
    Nightly
    Parallel-run cadence
    Auditor-ready
    Signed evidence pack

    Why microsoft dynamics nav data validation has to be a first-class discipline

    A NAV-to-Fusion migration that loads cleanly but cannot prove parity to the cent is a finance and audit problem waiting to detonate at the first month-end close in Fusion.

    NAV finance teams trust their numbers because they have spent years operating against the same G/L Entry table 17, the same Customer Posting Group derivation, the same Item Ledger Entry table 32 cost-layer logic. The day the migration goes live, every one of those familiar reference points is replaced with Fusion's COA + DFF + Subledger Accounting model. Without a rigorous microsoft dynamics nav data validation framework, the first month-end close in Fusion becomes a multi-week scavenger hunt — every variance investigated from scratch, with no way to prove it is a legitimate Fusion result vs a migration artefact.

    Syntra ETL inverts the sequence. Validation runs first, at every load. Before any Fusion data is exposed to finance users, the reconciliation engine proves G/L Entry parity, Customer Ledger parity, Vendor Ledger parity, Item Ledger parity, inventory valuation parity, open-document parity and dimension/COA aggregate parity — each to the cent and to the row. The first month-end close in Fusion runs against pre-validated data, so every variance is a real Fusion variance, not a migration mystery.

    Whether the engagement is a full NAV replacement, a Financials-only migration with SCM staying on NAV for a phase, or a multi-company consolidation where Company1, Company2 and Company3 merge into a single Fusion ledger — the same microsoft dynamics nav data validation engine runs, the same pass criteria apply, the same evidence pack ships.

    Reconciliation classes covered

    1
    Trial balance parity
    NAV G/L Entry aggregate vs Fusion GL TB by G/L Account + period in LCY and ACY, to the cent. Zero delta is the pass criterion.
    2
    Subledger parity
    Customer Ledger Entries vs Fusion AR by customer + period. Vendor Ledger Entries vs Fusion AP by vendor + period. Control account closure.
    3
    Inventory parity
    Quantity + value reconciliation across Item Ledger Entry 32, Value Entry 5802 against Fusion Cost Accounting layers — FIFO, LIFO, Average, Standard, Specific.
    4
    Open documents
    Open Sales Orders (header 36 + lines 37), open Purchase Orders (38/39), in-flight production orders — count and amount reconciliation.

    The eight reconciliation classes Syntra ETL runs out of the box

    Each class produces a signed page in the microsoft dynamics nav data validation evidence pack, with pass criteria agreed upfront with finance and external audit.

    📒

    Trial balance

    NAV G/L Entry 17 aggregate vs Fusion GL TB by G/L Account + period, in LCY and ACY, to the cent. Reconciliation runs in both directions to catch missing rows on either side.

    💰

    AR aging

    NAV Customer Ledger Entries by aging bucket (Current, 1-30, 31-60, 61-90, 91+) vs Fusion AR aging by bucket per customer per period. Control-account closure included.

    📦

    Inventory valuation

    NAV Item Ledger Entry 32 + Value Entry 5802 by item + location + costing method vs Fusion Cost Accounting layer values. FIFO/LIFO/Average/Standard/Specific all handled.

    📋

    Open documents

    Open Sales Header 36 + Sales Line 37 vs Fusion open Sales Orders. Open Purchase Header 38 + Purchase Line 39 vs Fusion open Purchase Orders. Count + amount.

    🧭

    Dimension/COA aggregates

    NAV Global Dim 1/2 + Shortcut Dim 3-8 aggregates vs Fusion COA segment aggregates + DFF aggregates at corresponding granularity per period.

    🔗

    Document chain

    Sample n=30 Fusion AR/AP balances drilled back to originating NAV Sales/Purchase Invoice. Every hop signed. Read-access audit log preserved for GoBD/HMRC/SAF-T.

    The microsoft dynamics nav data validation workflow

    A repeatable cadence: validate at extract, validate at transform, validate at load, validate post-load, validate nightly during parallel run, validate at cutover sign-off.

    1

    Extract Validation — Per extract

    Source-side row counts, hash signatures and aggregate totals captured for every NAV table extracted. Manifest signed and stored before downstream stages run.

    2

    Transform Validation — Per transform

    Crosswalk-applied output reconciled against source-side aggregates. Errors surfaced with row-level diagnostics before any Fusion submission.

    3

    Load Validation — Per load

    Post-load Fusion data re-hashed and reconciled against the staged transform output. Any record failing Fusion validation captured with the exact field-level reason.

    4

    Per-Period Reconciliation — Per period in scope

    Eight reconciliation classes run for every period in scope (typically last full quarter + opening balance period). Pass criteria checked. Evidence pages generated.

    5

    Parallel-Run Nightly — 30–60 days

    NAV deltas captured nightly, replayed to Fusion, reconciled by morning. Cumulative parallel-run reconciliation pack assembled across the window.

    6

    Cutover Sign-off — Cutover

    Tax, audit, finance and operations leads review the full microsoft dynamics nav data validation evidence pack, sign the cutover sign-off page. NAV moves to read-only archive mode.

    What the microsoft dynamics nav data validation evidence pack contains

    One pack, ten artefacts, signed once and referenced for the life of the migration and the audit window afterwards.

    📊

    Trial balance reconciliation

    Per-period G/L Entry vs Fusion GL TB reconciliation page in LCY and ACY, with delta column (must be zero at G/L Account + period level).

    📈

    AR aging reconciliation

    Per-period Customer Ledger aging vs Fusion AR aging page per customer per bucket with delta column. Control-account closure shown.

    📉

    AP aging reconciliation

    Per-period Vendor Ledger aging vs Fusion AP aging page per vendor per bucket with delta column. Control-account closure shown.

    📦

    Inventory valuation reconciliation

    Item Ledger 32 + Value Entry 5802 vs Fusion Cost Accounting per item-org per costing method with delta column.

    🧮

    Dimension/COA aggregate reconciliation

    Global Dim 1/2 + Shortcut Dim 3-8 aggregates vs Fusion COA segment + DFF aggregates per period with delta column.

    🔐

    Sign-off page

    PDF-signed sign-off from tax, audit, finance and operations leads. The single artefact that proves cutover-readiness to the steering committee.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is microsoft dynamics nav data validation in a Fusion migration?+

    Microsoft dynamics nav data validation is the post-load reconciliation discipline that proves the data sitting in Oracle Fusion is materially identical — to the cent and to the row — to the data that sat in NAV at cutover. It runs across every domain that matters for audit and operations: G/L Entry parity (Fusion GL totals vs NAV table 17), customer ledger parity (Fusion AR vs NAV Customer Ledger Entries), vendor ledger parity (Fusion AP vs NAV Vendor Ledger Entries), item ledger parity (Fusion Cost Accounting vs NAV table 32), inventory valuation parity, open-document parity, and dimension/COA aggregate parity. Done on a consultant-led project it is hand-built SQL; in Syntra ETL it is an out-of-the-box engine with a signed evidence pack.

    What does the microsoft dynamics nav data validation framework actually check?+

    The framework runs eight reconciliation classes per period in scope: (1) trial balance — Fusion GL TB vs NAV G/L Entry table 17 aggregate, to the cent in LCY and ACY; (2) AR aging — Fusion AR aging bucket totals vs NAV Customer Ledger Entry buckets; (3) AP aging — Fusion AP vs NAV Vendor Ledger Entry; (4) inventory valuation — Fusion Cost Accounting layer totals vs NAV Item Ledger Entry table 32 value entries; (5) inventory quantity — Fusion on-hand vs NAV quantity by location/bin; (6) open documents — open Sales Orders, open Purchase Orders, open production orders by count and amount; (7) dimension/COA aggregates — Fusion COA segment totals vs NAV dimension totals at the corresponding granularity; (8) document chain — sample of Fusion AR/AP balances drilled back to originating NAV Sales/Purchase Invoice.

    How does microsoft dynamics nav data validation prove G/L Entry parity?+

    G/L Entry parity is the heart of finance-side validation. The reconciliation engine extracts the full set of NAV G/L Entry rows for the period in scope, aggregates by G/L Account, posting date, Global Dimension 1 and 2, document number and source code, and produces a target-shape aggregate (in the Fusion COA + DFF model) of identical content. The same aggregation runs against the Fusion GL journal lines post-load. Deltas are computed at every aggregate level. Zero delta in LCY and ACY at the G/L Account + period level is the pass criterion. Any non-zero delta is investigated and either explained (timing, FX, rounding methodology) or fixed before sign-off.

    Does microsoft dynamics nav data validation cover customer and vendor totals?+

    Yes. Customer Ledger Entries (NAV's subledger for AR) and Vendor Ledger Entries (subledger for AP) are reconciled against Fusion AR and AP at the per-customer/per-vendor + per-period level. Open-item buckets (Current, 1-30, 31-60, 61-90, 91+) match. Unapplied receipts and unapplied payments match. The control-account reconciliation — sum of customer ledger entries vs the AR control G/L Account in NAV vs the equivalent Fusion AR control account — closes to the cent. Same for AP. Any mismatch surfaces as a specific row-level diagnostic, not as a vague 'AR is off by $43k somewhere'.

    How does microsoft dynamics nav data validation handle item ledger and inventory?+

    Item Ledger Entry (table 32) is NAV's transactional inventory record — every receipt, shipment, transfer, positive adjustment, negative adjustment, output and consumption posts a row, and Value Entries (table 5802) hold the cost layers. Microsoft dynamics nav data validation reconciles inventory three ways: (1) quantity parity — Fusion on-hand quantity by item + location + bin vs NAV quantity aggregated from Item Ledger Entry; (2) value parity — Fusion Cost Accounting layer values vs NAV Value Entry cost amounts by item + location and by costing method (FIFO, LIFO, Average, Standard, Specific); (3) movement parity — NAV inventory entry types (Sale, Purchase, Transfer, Adjustment, Output, Consumption) reconciled to Fusion equivalents over the period.

    What's in the microsoft dynamics nav data validation evidence pack?+

    Per period (typically last full quarter of NAV operation plus opening balance period in Fusion): trial balance reconciliation page (NAV vs Fusion, LCY and ACY, to the cent, with delta column), AR aging reconciliation page, AP aging reconciliation page, inventory valuation reconciliation page (by item-org and by costing method), open-Sales-Order reconciliation page, open-Purchase-Order reconciliation page, dimension/COA segment aggregate reconciliation, sampled document-chain drill-back evidence (n=30 documents end-to-end), control-account reconciliation, and the signed sign-off page from tax, audit, finance and operations leads.

    Can we use the microsoft dynamics nav data validation framework for ongoing parallel run?+

    Yes. After initial cutover validation, the same framework runs nightly during the parallel-run window (typically 1–2 month-end cycles). NAV deltas are captured through SQL Server change tracking or the Modified DateTime watermark, replayed to Fusion, and reconciled overnight. Any divergence flags into the next-morning standup with row-level evidence. The cumulative parallel-run reconciliation pack — every night for 30–60 days — becomes the audit-ready proof for the cutover sign-off committee that Fusion is operationally trustworthy before NAV moves to read-only archive mode.

    How does microsoft dynamics nav data validation integrate with external audit?+

    External auditors get direct read access to the validation evidence pack — every reconciliation page, every delta investigation, every sign-off — through a signed, immutable PDF bundle plus optional auditor-side query access into the long-term NAV archive. The microsoft dynamics nav data validation methodology is documented in writing as part of the engagement, the reconciliation criteria are agreed upfront (zero delta in LCY/ACY at the G/L Account + period level, plus the materiality thresholds for AR aging, AP aging, inventory valuation), and the actual reconciliation runs are captured with timestamps and hash signatures. Auditors stop asking 'how did you migrate the data?' and start signing off.

    Get your microsoft dynamics nav data validation done right

    Book a 30-minute discovery call. We'll walk through your G/L Entry volumes, subledger ageing, inventory model, dimension framework and audit expectations — and give you a concrete validation timeline before the call ends.