OrgDriftOrgDrift← Interactive sample
Open PDF

01 / The conclusion

Illustrative sample

Payroll Integrity Assessment

One transfer. Two active payrolls.

The employee’s US assignment took effect, but their UK payroll record remained active. Ask payroll to confirm whether the overlap is legitimate before the next run.

● Review requiredOne finding · UK-to-US transfer

The decision before the next run

Confirm the transfer date and any legitimate overlap with the payroll owner before changing eligibility or payment.

See the three source states →

Illustrative scenario only. No customer data, live system connection or completed audit is represented. This is a separate example from the interactive payroll sample.

What this assessment covers Scope and limits
Report
PIA-SAMPLE-2026-0417
As of
17 April 2026
Workflow
UK-to-US employee transfer · Workday, ADP UK and ADP US
  • One illustrative finding within a stated sample population of 148 records; this page does not contain those source records.
  • The comparison concerns payroll eligibility after a transfer, not payment accuracy, tax compliance or all payroll controls.
  • Local source checks cannot by themselves establish agreement across systems. Their actual execution is not evidenced here.
  • No reviewer is assigned. Actions are proposed, not accepted or completed; no sign-off or assurance opinion is provided.

02 / Follow the evidence

Where the records disagree.

Read across the three source states. Each evidence reference opens the supporting explanation.

WorkdayUS assignment effectiveEffective date: 1 April 2026EV-014 ↗ADP USPayroll activeUS payroll eligibility activeEV-018 ↗ADP UKPayroll still activeNo matching inactive state in the scenarioEV-021 ↗
Finding referenceFND-2026-0417
What should happen
After an effective transfer, the prior payroll should no longer show active eligibility unless an authorized overlap is documented.
What the example shows
The example shows a US assignment effective 1 April and active records in both payroll systems on 17 April.
Why it matters
There may be duplicate payroll eligibility. Active status alone does not prove that duplicate payments were made.
How the exposure estimate works Assumptions, not loss

Illustrative 12-period exposure

USD 132,000

USD 11,000 per period × 12 periods

Assumes USD 11,000 of duplicate gross pay in each of 12 future pay periods, with no correction. It is not an amount observed during the 16-day overlap.

Actual payments, tax treatment, offsets and recovery obligations have not been checked. Confirm the amount and appropriate currency basis with payroll.

Inspect the evidence references Three source records

Illustrative references, not downloadable source files. These explain the example; they do not establish an executed customer control.

EV-014 Workday

US assignment effective. Effective date: 1 April 2026.

Supports
The transfer date used by the comparison.
Does not prove
Does not establish whether the prior payroll was closed.
Sample input ID
wd_20260417_a91c
↩ Back to the finding

EV-018 ADP US

Payroll active. US payroll eligibility active.

Supports
An active record in the receiving payroll.
Does not prove
Does not establish whether any payment was made.
Sample input ID
adpus_77e4
↩ Back to the finding

EV-021 ADP UK

Payroll still active. No matching inactive state in the scenario.

Supports
An active record in the prior payroll.
Does not prove
Does not rule out an authorized overlap or final-pay obligation.
Sample input ID
adpuk_15bc
↩ Back to the finding
Trace the change over time Three events
  1. 28 March

    Transfer recorded; US assignment effective 1 April.

  2. 1 April

    US payroll active; UK payroll remains active.

  3. 17 April

    The illustrative comparison identifies the overlap.

Inspect the check and its limits Rule and review status
Check
PAY-GM-03
Sample version
v2.4.1
Sample timestamp
2026-04-17T14:32:18Z
Root cause
Not established. The example suggests a missed payroll handoff; an owner must investigate before assigning a root cause.

Illustrative rule and execution metadata. The source files and executable ruleset for this scenario are not supplied, so this example cannot be independently re-performed.

03 / The action plan

Validate. Correct. Re-check.

Proposed next steps for the owner—not completed actions or instructions to stop a legitimate payment.

  1. A-01

    Validate the overlap

    Confirm the effective date, authorized dual-pay arrangements and final-pay obligations. Record the decision before changing either payroll.

    Payroll Director + HR operationsBefore the next payroll run

    Supporting evidence: EV-014, EV-018, EV-021

  2. A-02

    Determine the actual impact

    Reconcile actual payments, currencies and offsets. Document any correction or recovery only after the relevant obligations are verified.

    Payroll + FinanceAfter eligibility is confirmed

    Supporting evidence: Payment registers required — not supplied

  3. A-03

    Verify the correction

    Re-run the agreed check, retain before-and-after evidence and record reviewer sign-off. Then decide whether recurring checks are needed.

    Control owner + reviewerAfter any approved change

    Supporting evidence: Updated exports and approval required

Review remains open

Owner and reviewer: not assigned. No action acceptance, correction or sign-off is recorded in this sample.

Questions to take into the review Discussion guide
  • Is the effective date correct, and was any payroll overlap authorized?
  • What do the payment registers show—not just the active flags?
  • Who will approve the correction and verify the next export?

This sample does not collect comments. In a customer review, record the answers and supporting evidence before sign-off.

OrgDrift · PIA-SAMPLE-2026-0417Illustrative sample · 17 April 2026