Spreadsheets are still embedded in the UK payments industry. More than half of firms (56%) use them as a core tool for reconciliation and reporting. They’re familiar, flexible and quick to patch into legacy processes. Teams know how to bend them to edge cases.

But what works in a start-up or small programme rarely scales. As volumes grow, spreadsheet-driven workflows become brittle foundations for compliance, audit readiness and growth.

In this article, we’ll look at how spreadsheets slow down reporting, why reconciliation is the foundation of accurate outputs and what smart data looks like in practice. Finally, we’ll outline a practical playbook for payments business to modernise reporting workflows for scale.

Manual processes & delayed reporting: the 82% problem

82% of UK payments businesses say they frequently struggle to meet reporting deadlines. The root cause isn’t lack of effort, but capacity swallowed by manual, fragmented workflows.

Teams spend hours every day pulling files from multiple systems, cleaning and standardising formats, enriching with missing context and hand-matching exceptions. It’s work that doesn’t generate insight—only the eligibility to report.

Kani’s payments reporting survey data shows the scale of the drain. Before reconciliation even begins, firms spend about three hours per day on data preparation, with some spending five or more. On a daily cadence, that’s more than 700 hours every year lost to prep cycles.

And once prep is done, the heavy lifting continues. Respondents flagged data collection, matching and exception handling as the top time drains (each cited by 32%), with data standardisation (31%) and audit adjustments (28%) close behind.

No wonder a majority (53%) say they spend too much time creating reports—and that’s before regulator-specific formats or card-scheme requirements are even factored in. Manual steps multiply with volume, channels and counterparties. Deadlines don’t move.

Why spreadsheets fail at scale

Efficient, accurate reporting depends on equally efficient, accurate reconciliation. When reconciliation is slow or inconsistent, the cracks show up quickly: breaks pile up, errors spread and reporting deadlines slip. Spreadsheets simply can’t keep pace with today’s payments data: high volume, multi-currency, multi-rail and under constant audit pressure.

At scale, three failure modes dominate:

1) Errors grow with volume

Nearly half (44%) of reconciliation errors stem from human intervention and system integration issues. Add lack of real-time access and inconsistent formats, and you have errors built into the process, not occasional mishaps.

2) Matching outgrows flat files

Cross-currency transactions (23%), multiple payment channels (22%) and high volumes (20%) are the top matching barriers. Each adds manual effort and creates more exceptions to chase—work that flat files were never designed to handle.

3) Audit trails break down

Spreadsheets don’t preserve controls, lineage or repeatability. As scrutiny rises, flat files work against audit readiness, slowing down close processes and exposing gaps.

The business impact is real: respondents report financial discrepancies (35%), compliance risk (29%), delayed reporting (28%) and even damage to investment and growth prospects (34%) when errors creep in.

It’s not just tools: the systemic blockers

The goal shouldn’t be to “automate reconciliation and reporting” in name only. Reporting inefficiency runs deeper than tool choice. Survey data shows firms also struggle with:

Data inconsistency across systems

Multiple sources, formats and naming conventions undermine match rates and trust in outputs. For example, the same transaction might be tagged with different identifiers across a processor file, bank statement and internal ledger.

Without rigorous normalisation rules, even correct data appears mismatched, creating exceptions that don’t need to exist. Over time, these inconsistencies also erode confidence in reports, as stakeholders question whether the outputs are truly reconciled.

Exception management overhead

32% of firms cite exceptions as one of the most time-consuming stages. The problem is often the fragility of matching logic and standards or missing enrichment data, creating false breaks that pile into exception queues.

Analysts are forced into manual investigation cycles, chasing issues that could have been resolved automatically with stronger rules or better upstream controls. This overhead grows in proportion to transaction volume, making it a major scalability barrier.

Verification and cleansing

Before reconciliation and reporting can even begin, teams spend significant time validating input files, correcting missing or malformed fields and ensuring data completeness. These pre-checks are vital for accuracy, but they also delay reporting cycles.

Reporting overload

Even where software is in place, many firms still spend too much time producing reports (53%). This points to issues with configuration and data models, not just tooling gaps. If the reconciliation engine doesn’t map cleanly to reporting requirements—regulator formats, card scheme templates, internal MI—then teams are stuck reshaping the same data again and again. That means more manual adjustments, more duplication of effort and more room for error.

Technology on its own doesn’t fix these problems. Modernisation means re-engineering workflows around the data, not just bolting tools onto the edges.

What “smart data” looks like

Smart data is about reliability. It means reconciliation outputs that are already validated, normalised and enriched, so they can flow straight into reporting, analytics and audits every day, at scale.

Instead of wasting time reworking spreadsheets or chasing gaps, teams can trust that the data foundation is stable and audit-ready. That requires:

• Automated ingestion and matching across processors, issuers, acquirers and banks, reducing the daily prep burden that currently consumes hundreds of hours a year.
• Normalisation and standardisation that collapse format differences into a single model, raising auto-match rates and reducing exceptions.
• Enrichment by design. Codifying enrichment in the pipeline, not in one-off spreadsheets, strengthens audit trails and reporting quality.
• Governance-ready outputs with lineage, controls and repeatability, so regulator and scheme reports don’t require last-minute heroics.

A playbook to modernise payments reporting

As data volumes grow and regulatory scrutiny tightens, businesses can’t afford to patch spreadsheets indefinitely. Modernising reporting means rethinking workflows and tackling each blocker step by step.

Here’s how to get there:

Simplify your system landscape

Complex, layered workflows are a hidden tax on speed. Unify systems to reduce silos and handoffs.

Attack exceptions at the source

You won’t eliminate errors, but you can raise auto-match rates and streamline exception workflows, cutting the time drain and stabilising reporting timelines.

Treat deadlines as diagnostics

Missed submissions are an upstream signal. Use reporting SLAs as health checks to expose collection, standardisation and matching bottlenecks.

Automate now, save later

Moving a three-hour daily prep routine into an automated pipeline reclaims ~700 hours a year—time that can be redeployed to analysis, forecasting and audits.

Adopt tailored solutions

Off-the-shelf won’t fit every payments data environment. Choose platforms and partners that adapt to your workflows rather than forcing you to contort to the tool.

Bottom line

Spreadsheets gave payments teams a flexible start, but at scale they’ve become a structural risk. They drain capacity, expand the error surface and leave firms scrambling to meet reporting obligations.

Modern operations demand more. Smart data—reconciled, validated, normalised and enrichment-ready—creates reporting that’s accurate by default, not assembled at the last minute. It’s about workflows designed for scale, auditability and trust, not patched flat files.

Firms that make this shift will reduce exceptions, strengthen resilience and build a data foundation that supports growth, investor confidence and regulatory trust. That’s the real prize of moving from spreadsheets to smart data.

Want to learn more?

Explore how Kani helps automate payments reporting workflows end-to-end—from ingestion to audit.

In the payments industry, every reconciliation team deals with exceptions. The idea of a process where upstream data is flawless, matching is perfect and reports land without a single adjustment is appealing in theory. But it rarely survives contact with reality.

Our Reconciliation and Reporting Survey 2025 confirms this: of the 250 UK payments professionals we spoke to, not a single one said their company’s reconciliation process is error-free. Whether you’re an issuer, acquirer, processor or neobank, breaks are inevitable. The real test is how quickly and cleanly they’re resolved, and how well teams prevent them from escalating into bigger risks.

In this article, we’ll break down why exceptions occur, the operational risks they create and how to handle them with speed, accuracy and confidence.

What are exceptions?

An exception is simply a transaction that doesn’t match as expected during reconciliation. In practice, this means two records that should align (for example, a processor transaction and its corresponding settlement entry) don’t match on key fields such as amount, currency, date or identifier.

The break may be a genuine error, such as a duplicate transaction or missing credit, or a harmless variance caused by timing differences, formatting inconsistencies or incomplete data.

Exceptions require manual review to confirm their cause, and their volume and nature are a direct reflection of the health of upstream data quality, integration and matching logic.

Why do exceptions happen?

In payment reconciliation, exceptions occur because of underlying gaps in data quality, format consistency or the timing of information flows between different systems. Even minor issues in the following areas can quickly multiple across high-volume workflows.

Data quality gaps

The single biggest underlying cause of reconciliation breaks is poor or inconsistent data quality. When incoming transaction data contains missing fields, mismatched identifiers or incomplete metadata, matching logic struggles to tie records together.

Even when the originating and settlement systems are correct in isolation, small discrepancies in format or field population create false mismatches. These errors propagate downstream, requiring manual investigation to confirm whether they’re genuine exceptions or harmless variances.

Cross-currency mismatches

Roughly one-quarter of businesses say that matching cross-currency transactions is their greatest reconciliation challenge. Where a transaction is processed in one currency but settled in another, exchange rate differences and timing variances can block automatic reconciliation.

Without robust FX rate handling—including agreed rate sources, time-stamped application and tolerance settings—the reconciliation engine may flag a break even though the amounts are correct once converted. These mismatches are especially common for processors and acquirers operating across multiple regions.

Multi-channel data misalignment

Card transactions don’t all flow through a single channel. Issuers may reconcile across different card schemes, alternative payment methods or direct bank transfers, each with its own schema, naming conventions and reporting timelines. If data feeds aren’t normalised during ingestion, transaction identifiers may not line up, producing large exception queues despite the underlying transactions being correct.

Delayed or incomplete feeds

Even when data is accurate and formats align, reconciliation can’t succeed without the full dataset. Late-arriving processor files, delayed bank statements or missing settlement batches result in breaks simply because the counterpart record hasn’t yet landed. While these exceptions can be cleared later, they create noise in the queue and consume analyst time in re-checking once the data arrives.

How poor exception handling costs you

Left unmanaged, exceptions create a compound impact across operations, compliance and financial reporting.

Operational drag

Almost one-third (32%) of UK payments businesses rank exception handling among their most time-consuming reconciliation tasks. Every unresolved break extends the reconciliation cycle, holds up batch closure and ties analysts up in manual review instead of higher-value work. Over time, this erodes throughput capacity, making it harder to handle peak volumes without deadline pressure.

Compliance and reporting risk

Missed deadlines are endemic: 82% of survey respondents struggle to meet reporting timelines. Breaks caused by late or mismatched data may be temporary, but they can still block critical submissions to regulators, card schemes or internal stakeholders. For regulated firms, repeated reporting delays can prompt greater scrutiny of operational controls.

Financial discrepancies

Breaks can mask genuine problems like missing credits, duplicate transactions or misapplied fees. Some 35% of respondents in our survey cited financial discrepancies as the most serious operational impact of reconciliation errors. These discrepancies distort general ledger balances, cash flow reporting and—in extreme cases—result in incorrect settlement with partners.

Erosion of trust and growth potential

One in three respondents (34%) said reconciliation errors affect their ability to attract investment or pursue growth opportunities. Persistent exceptions signal weak financial controls to stakeholders, creating doubt over whether the business can scale reliably.

Automating for faster, cleaner resolutions

Automation can dramatically reduce the time and effort spent on exception handling, but only when it’s paired with the right upstream data practices. The first step is to minimise the volume of exceptions by maximising auto-match rates.

Every transaction that matches cleanly upstream is one less item requiring manual review. This means standardising file formats, enforcing validation rules at source and using data enrichment intelligently so match logic has the fullest possible context to work with.

For the exceptions that remain, automation needs to be configured with the specific capabilities that keep them moving smoothly through resolution. This includes:

• Real-time detection of exceptions as transactions flow in
• Automated categorisation and routing based on pre-defined rules
• Pre-populated resolution suggestions drawn from historic resolution patterns
• Integrated resolution workflows within the same platform where detection occurs

Taking control of exceptions means a two-pronged approach: maximise auto-match rates to reduce what enters the queue, then handle the rest without letting them distract you from high-value work.

From firefighting to proactive control

High-performing teams don’t just clear exceptions—they learn from them. Exception data, when tracked and analysed, reveals recurring fault lines in the reconciliation process.

Some of the most effective practices include:

• Root cause tracking: Tagging exceptions by cause and source system to prioritise structural fixes over repeated manual work
• Trend analysis: Monitoring patterns over time to anticipate spikes, such as seasonal peaks or new partner onboarding
• Deadline benchmarking: Using missed or met reporting deadlines as a performance indicator for upstream reconciliation health
• Feedback loops: Feeding resolution insights back into matching logic, file format standards and partner integrations

This shifts exception management from a reactive queue to a proactive control function that reduces both the frequency and severity of future breaks.

Redefining the win in reconciliation

Exceptions are inevitable in today’s high-volume, multi-format payments environment. The benchmark for reconciliation maturity isn’t zero breaks. It’s how they’re handled.

Managed well, exceptions are a diagnostic tool, revealing exactly where matching logic, data standardisation or system integration needs attention. The real opportunity lies in acting on those signals.

By combining strong data quality controls, high match rates, well-configured automation and a proactive approach to analysing exception trends, payments businesses can move from firefighting to continuous improvement—turning a persistent operational challenge into a genuine competitive advantage.

Want to learn more?

Explore how Kani streamlines exception management in reconciliation, automating detection, resolution and root cause analysis so you can focus on what matters.

The FCA has finalised its Supplementary Regime for safeguarding at payments and e-money firms. These rules are now set, with a nine-month runway to implementation.

Below we recap the story so far, what’s changed in the final policy and how payments businesses can get audit-ready with minimal disruption.

The road so far

Back in spring we outlined the FCA’s two-stage approach to fix weaknesses in safeguarding: an interim Supplementary Regime to tighten day-to-day compliance under the existing PSRs/EMRs, followed by a potential Post-Repeal (CASS-style) regime subject to Treasury legislation. The FCA’s policy statement confirms that structure and provides the finalised interim rules.

Why the change?

Recent changes come after the FCA found weaknesses in current safeguarding practices, which have led to shortfalls and delays when firms fail. The new rules hard-wire daily controls and reporting so customers get their money back “as quickly and fully as possible”.

What’s now final

Scope and timing

The rules cover authorised payment institutions (other than pure PIS/AIS), authorised and small e-money institutions and credit unions issuing e-money. Small payment institutions can continue to opt in. The effective date is 7 May 2026 after a nine-month implementation period.

Reconciliations (daily discipline)

A daily reconciliation discipline is now hard-wired, but with a pragmatic definition: firms must complete internal and external safeguarding reconciliations at least once on each reconciliation day, which excludes weekends, UK bank/public holidays and days when relevant foreign markets are closed.

The FCA also clarifies the core control: compare the D+1 segregation requirement with the D+1 segregation resource and remediate any shortfall promptly (using own funds if necessary).

Monthly safeguarding return

Expect a new regulatory return due within 15 business days of each month-end. The purpose is to ensure the FCA receives regular and comprehensive information about safeguarding, enabling earlier identification of potential risks. Among other things, it captures whether reconciliations were completed on every reconciliation day. Submission is electronic via the FCA’s systems.

Annual safeguarding audit with a proportionate threshold

Most firms will need an annual safeguarding audit by a qualified auditor, unless they have not been required to safeguard more than £100,000 of relevant funds at any time over a continuous period of at least 53 weeks.

Resolution pack becomes mandatory

Borrowing from best practice in CASS, firms must maintain a resolution pack that makes it quick to trace where relevant funds are held, who the agents and distributors are and how records and transfers are controlled. This helps maintain “living” documentation that materially speeds up customer redress in the event of insolvency.

Third-party diligence and diversification

When appointing or reviewing banks, custodians, insurers or guarantors, firms must perform due diligence and explicitly consider whether to diversify providers. The rules expect a reasoned, documented view that is revisited periodically, with changes made where appropriate.

Acknowledgement letters

The FCA has standardised safeguarding account acknowledgement letters via a template and detailed guidance. Firms must obtain countersigned letters from each relevant bank or custodian, retain them, review them at least annually and promptly replace them if any details change. Keep each countersigned acknowledgement letter for five years after the last account it names is closed.

Guidance and implementation

The FCA has published the amendments it intends to make to its Approach Document (effective when the rules go live) and will engage with the industry throughout the implementation period to support adoption.

Why this matters for card programmes and acquiring flows

For programme managers and EMIs, the practical lift is in the daily D+1 rhythm across wallet loads, card spend and settlement with scheme/sponsor banks—plus the evidence trail that feeds the monthly return. The resolution pack should read like a control room: entities, accounts, flows, agreements and up-to-date letters in one place, with links back to the latest reconciliations and policies.

For acquirers and PIs, the same cadence applies to merchant settlement, reserves and collateral accounts, with a new emphasis on documenting why your chosen bank/custodian mix is appropriate—and when you chose to diversify.

How to comply before May 2026

Immediate (0–3 months)

• Gap analysis against PS25/12: reconciliations, D+1 logic, external checks, monthly return data model, resolution pack content, third-party due diligence, acknowledgement letters, board reporting
• Map data and owners to complete monthly returns within 15 business days—no spreadsheets, no re-keying

Build (3–6 months)

• Draft and populate the resolution pack
• Implement diversification reviews (with rationale and evidence) for banks/custodians/insurers/guarantors
• Refresh and centralise acknowledgement-letters per the FCA template and retention rules

Prove (final 3 months before 7 May 2026)

• Run an end-to-end dress rehearsal: daily internal + external reconciliations on reconciliation days, D+1 remediation and a mock monthly return from live data
• Train teams; lock auditor engagement where applicable (watch the £100k / 53-week exemption carefully)

Controls that will be scrutinised

• D+1 comparison and evidence of prompt remediation of shortfalls/excesses
• Completion of attestations in the monthly return—e.g., reconciliations performed on every reconciliation day
• Third-party due diligence and diversification reviews with documented conclusions and timing
• Acknowledgement letter status, accuracy and replacement process; five-year retention post-closure
• Single-owner oversight

Build the habit; earn the trust

The direction of travel is clear: safeguarding must be visible, verifiable and repeatable to ensure quicker, fairer outcomes for customers. Treat it as an operating capability, not a compliance chore, and you turn regulatory pressure into a durable edge.

Firms that embed this now won’t just glide through audits; they’ll move faster with sponsor banks and custodians, reduce operational risk and be ready for whatever comes next—whether that’s supervisory scrutiny or a future, CASS-style regime.

*Information in this article is summarising regulatory events and should not be construed as offering legal advice

Glossary

PIS = Payment Initiation Services 

AIS = Account Information Services 

PSRs = Payment Services Regulations

EMRs = Electronic Money Regulations

EMIs = Electronic Money Institutions 

PIs = Payment Institutions 

In today’s high-volume, multi-channel payments environment, choosing the right payment reconciliation software is as much a strategic decision as it is a technical one. Yet many businesses are still battling through spreadsheets, semi-automated workarounds and home-grown scripts that can’t scale.

As payment complexity grows, so too does the risk of mismatches, reporting delays and regulatory pressure. Businesses need an end-to-end solution that’s purpose built for the challenges of payment reconciliation, like fragmented data, complex transaction flows and mounting compliance demands.

We analysed insights from Kani’s Payment Reconciliation & Reporting Survey 2025—capturing feedback from over 250 UK payments firms—to help you identify what really matters when choosing a solution.

1. Automated, scalable data ingestion

Why it matters: 47% of survey respondents cited fragmented data as their top barrier to accurate reconciliation and reporting. That’s because each payment provider—whether processor, bank, card scheme or PSP—delivers data in its own structure, using different naming conventions, file formats, encoding standards and metadata assumptions.

Files arrive as CSVs, PDFs, ISO20022 XMLs or API payloads—often with missing fields, inconsistent delimiters and undocumented schema changes. The bottleneck presented by inconsistent data is no joke: the average UK payments businesses spends 3 hours preparing data before reconciliation can even begin. Assuming daily reconciliation, this equates to a staggering 700 hours annually.

What to look for

To overcome this, your software should support ingestion that’s

• Format-agnostic, able to ingest files via SFTP, API or drag-and-drop uploads
• Schema-flexible, allowing non-technical teams to map and align fields without scripting
• Intelligent, with automated file classification, header detection and validation on upload
• Built for scale, able to process large, multi-source datasets concurrently

Without scalable ingestion, you’re not automating reconciliation—you’re just moving the manual effort upstream.

2. Built-in data standardisation and error handling

Why it matters: Matching logic relies on consistent semantics. But real-world payment data often arrives with local timestamp formats, inconsistent currency rounding, merged values (e.g. “2025-03-01 EUR 10.00”) or shifted columns due to upstream file edits.

Without robust standardisation and pre-matching validation, errors are simply carried into the reconciliation stage—where they cause false mismatches, audit trail breaks and duplicate exceptions.

53% of firms say too much time is spent formatting reports rather than fixing actual problems. That’s a sign of systemic inefficiency: time spent wrangling format issues instead of addressing root-cause data integrity.

What to look for

Obtaining clean, standardised data requires software with built-in:

• Timezone conversion and ISO 8601 formatting
• Normalisation of currency and amount fields, including FX rates and decimal rounding
• Parsing of embedded metadata fields
• Auto-validation of required fields, column counts and row-level integrity

Effective reconciliation software should act like a compiler, catching data issues early before they corrupt downstream logic.

3. Multi-layered reconciliation logic

Why it matters: Payments don’t follow neat one-to-one patterns. You might reconcile an authorisation against multiple settlements, account for a partial refund or trace a processor deposit to multiple ledger entries (each with FX conversion and fee offsets).

Our research shows that 23% of firms struggle with FX matching, and 20% face daily issues with chargebacks and reversals. Yet many reconciliation tools are built on simplistic matching engines that assume static, one-to-one relationships.

Modern software must accommodate real payment flows: chained events, many-to-many mappings, value tolerances, time-based matching and rolling cut-off rules.

What to look for

To reconcile modern payment flows, software should enable:

• Configurable, rules-based matching (e.g. tolerance bands, date windows, chained matching)
• FX-aware matching, including rate source tracking and rounding logic
• One-to-many and many-to-one relationship support
• Sub-ledger and multi-layer reconciliation (e.g., PSP → processor → bank)
• Time-sequenced logic for event-driven workflows (e.g., authorisation → settlement → refund → dispute)

The real test of payment reconciliation software isn’t how it handles perfect data—it’s how it handles edge cases without falling apart.

4. Exception management that’s audit-ready

Why it matters: Exception handling is where teams lose visibility. When unmatched transactions spill into offline spreadsheets or Slack threads, the audit trail breaks. Regulators don’t just care that issues are resolved—they care that resolution is traceable, timely and documented.

Kani’s survey found that 82% of payments firms have missed a reporting deadline due to delays or inconsistencies in reconciliation. And with growing regulatory scrutiny, ad-hoc exception handling is no longer acceptable.

Exception workflows must be centralised, rule-driven and logged end-to-end.

What to look for

Managing exceptions effectively requires software that can:

• Automatically triage breaks into queues based on rule logic or exception type
• Assign owners, track resolution notes and log time-stamped user actions
• Escalate unresolved items before deadlines are missed
• Export clean audit packs with full history of edits, comments and status changes

Good reconciliation software builds defensible, regulator-friendly audit trails you don’t have to assemble manually.

5. End-to-end reporting and compliance outputs

Why it matters: Reporting is where the value of reconciliation becomes tangible. Whether it’s safeguarding submissions to the FCA or Mastercard QMR and Visa GOC files, the ability to generate clean, compliant reports instantly can make or break your operations.

Yet even fully automated systems are struggling: 60% of firms using them say reporting still takes too long. That’s often due to misconfigured templates, poor source data linkage or rigid output formats that don’t match evolving requirements.

Your reconciliation software should be your reporting engine—not a pre-step to another manual process.

What to look for

To make reporting seamless, aim for software that includes:

• Pre-built templates for FCA, card scheme and regulatory outputs
• User role-based sign-off workflows and approval logs
• Field locking to prevent post-submission edits or accidental change
• Secure access links for auditors and external stakeholders
• Time-stamped submission logs and secure access links for regulators

When reconciliation software closes the loop between data, resolution and reporting, deadlines stop being a source of stress and instead become a source of confidence.

Final thoughts: Your checklist is your strategy

Choosing payment reconciliation software is ultimately about choosing control: over data, processes, compliance and operational scale.

From ingestion to exception handling, the right platform transforms reconciliation from a firefighting task to a strategic capability. If your team is spending more time collecting, formatting or investigating than analysing and reporting, it’s time to upgrade.

Want to learn more? Explore how Kani helps automate reconciliation workflows end-to-end—from ingestion to audit.

Payment reconciliation is a critical financial control process that ensures every transaction—whether incoming or outgoing—matches across your internal records, bank statements and processor files. It’s how you prove that what should have happened with the money actually did.

While the concept is straightforward, real-world payment reconciliation is anything but. Cross-border transactions, fragmented data sources and mounting regulatory pressure have made the process more complex (and business-critical) than ever.

So what does effective reconciliation look like today? In this article, we’ll break down what the process involves, who’s responsible, what tools are used—and crucially, why it’s getting harder by the day.

What is payment reconciliation?

Payment reconciliation is the process of comparing and matching payment data from different systems to ensure accuracy. That typically means aligning internal accounting records with external sources like:

• Bank statements
• Payment processor reports
• Card scheme files
• PSP (Payment Service Provider) exports
• Customer invoicing systems

The goal is to identify and resolve any mismatches, whether due to timing issues, data formatting errors, missing records or fraud. When done correctly, reconciliation enhances financial accuracy, supports audit readiness and upholds regulatory compliance.

What does payment reconciliation involve?

The core steps include:

• Collecting data from all relevant systems (banks, PSPs, processors, internal ledgers)
• Standardising disparate formats
• Matching transactions across sources (e.g. processor vs ledger vs bank)
• Flagging exceptions such as failed payments, reversals or duplicates
• Investigating discrepancies and resolving them
• Generating reports to prove traceability and compliance

It sounds straightforward, but real-world complexity is high—especially when reconciling across multiple payment channels, currencies or regions.

Who is responsible for payment reconciliation?

Responsibility typically sits with the finance or operations team, often with input from compliance, risk and audit stakeholders. But in fintech and high-growth environments, reconciliation can stretch across roles:

• Finance teams ensure accurate records and reporting
• Ops teams chase down anomalies and investigate errors
• Compliance teams validate audit trails and regulatory submissions
• CTOs or product teams may manage the underlying infrastructure

With so many stakeholders involved, visibility and shared standards become critical.

What tools are used in payment reconciliation?

Payment firms use a wide mix of tools and approaches—some more efficient than others. According to Kani’s 2025 Payment Reconciliation Survey:

• 44% of firms rely on a partially automated approach, combining spreadsheets with reconciliation tools
• 28% use dedicated payment reconciliation software, built for scale, automation and auditability
• 12% still use spreadsheets exclusively, exposing themselves to manual errors and reporting delays
• 12% outsource reconciliation entirely to third-party providers
• Only 5% have developed their own in-house solution

The trend is clear: while some firms are still dependent on spreadsheets, the shift toward dedicated, end-to-end automation is well underway.

Why is payment reconciliation so challenging?

Here’s where the real friction lies—and why many firms struggle to scale their reconciliation processes.

1. Data fragmentation

47% of firms in our reconciliation and reporting survey said fragmented data was their top barrier to accurate reporting.

This is unsurprising, given that each bank, PSP, processor or scheme delivers data in a unique format: CSV, ISO20022, PDF, API or even custom structures. Worse still is that field names differ, time zones clash and metadata is often missing.

Without standardisation across diverse sources and formats, even the best automated reconciliation tools will fall short. Fragmented inputs make it harder to create audit trails, investigate anomalies or generate like-for-like reports. Teams waste time mapping fields, translating formats and chasing missing metadata—just to get to a starting point.

2. Partial payments, reversals, chargebacks and FX

Modern payments are rarely a simple one-to-one debit. You’re dealing with a messy mix of partial settlements, failed transactions, refunds, chargebacks, fees, multi-currency FX conversions and time-lagged deposits. Each of these creates variance across transaction records and requires purpose-built logic to reconcile properly.

In our research, respondents named cross-currency matching (23%), chargebacks and refunds (20%) and multi-channel complexity (18%) as their top challenges when matching data. These aren’t niche issues—they’re daily obstacles that manual tools or basic matching engines just can’t keep up with.

That’s why reconciliation today demands more than a one-size-fits-all approach. To stay accurate, firms need systems that can trace the full transaction lifecycle—from original authorisation to final settlement—across multiple sources, currencies and outcomes.

3. Excel isn’t up to the task

More than half (56%) of payments firms still rely on spreadsheets for reconciliation . It’s a revealing (and costly) statistic.

Among spreadsheet users, 94% say they regularly miss reporting deadlines, and 71% admit the process is unnecessarily time-consuming . These manual approaches also introduce operational risk: over half (53%) of respondents said too much of their team’s bandwidth is tied up in creating reports, rather than investigating discrepancies or adding value elsewhere.

Manual reconciliation may once have worked at smaller scales. But today’s high-volume, multi-source payments data requires speed, traceability and repeatability that spreadsheets simply can’t deliver.

4. Regulatory pressure vs operational reality

Payment firms are under growing pressure from regulators to reconcile daily. But our survey found that the average business spends three hours just preparing data before reconciliation can even begin—meaning daily reconciliation would drain 700 hours every year.

This time sink represents a structural bottleneck that impedes growth and stifles innovation. Without clean, standardised data at the outset, even well-resourced teams struggle to meet submission windows, maintain compliance and defend their numbers under scrutiny.

5. Partial automation isn’t enough

Many companies have started automating parts of reconciliation—such as data ingestion or basic matching—but are still stuck in fragmented workflows.

They end up in what we call the “half-automated trap”:

• Automated ingestion
• But manual formatting
• Basic matching
• But manual exception handling
• Automated alerts
• But manual reporting

This patchwork creates more friction than it solves—and breaks the audit trail in the process.

What’s needed? A shift from tools to solutions.

There’s a difference between using a reconciliation tool and adopting a full reconciliation solution: A tool automates part of the process, like matching; a solution transforms your financial operations from end to end.

The most effective payment reconciliation solutions:

• Standardise and validate incoming data
• Connect siloed systems and formats
• Surface errors in real time
• Track every action for audit
• Deliver reporting on-demand

This is especially true for businesses handling multi-channel payments, cross-border transactions and high-volume operations.

Why it all matters

Reconciliation may not grab headlines, but it’s the backbone of financial integrity. When done well, it prevents errors, enables compliance and builds trust with customers, partners and regulators alike.

But in today’s payments environment, traditional methods are no longer enough. As complexity increases, so too does the need for structured data, repeatable processes and tools built to scale.

Whether you’re a fintech startup or a global payments provider, the message is clear: fix the data first, and the rest will follow.

Looking to streamline your operations?

Learn how Kani’s payment reconciliation software helps automate workflows, consolidate data across sources and eliminate manual data work.

The changing face of reconciliation

Reconciliation used to be simple—just match the numbers and move on. But in 2025, it’s the foundation of financial control, auditability and compliance.

Yet many businesses are still relying on partial fixes: spreadsheets, lightweight tools or bolt-on features from legacy platforms. The result? Delays, discrepancies and risk.

Here’s the irony: the reconciliation solution you actually need today isn’t just a matching engine; it’s a full data platform. One that helps you standardise, report, investigate and stay audit-ready all in the same place.

If your reconciliation stops at matching, you’re missing the real opportunity.

Reconciliation solution vs reconciliation tool: What’s the difference?

A reconciliation tool does one job: help you match transactions.

A reconciliation solution transforms your financial operations. It connects data sources, standardises inputs, matches across multiple relationships, flags errors, creates audit trails and generates reports—all in one workflow.

A tool is a wrench.

A solution is the full workshop, built to scale with your business.

If you’re still using spreadsheets or legacy software with bolt-on matching features, you’re running a tool, not a solution.

And the distinction does matter, because only an end-to-end solution can eliminate the patchwork processes that often hold teams back.

Why partial automation isn’t enough

Many businesses start with good intentions—automating parts of reconciliation like data ingestion or matching—but end up stuck in fragmented processes. We call this the half-automated trap.

They’ve automated parts of reconciliation (like ingestion or basic matching) but still rely on spreadsheets for formatting, manual uploads, variance checks and compiling reports.

Kani’s Reconciliation & Reporting Survey 2025 laid bare just how widespread and costly this is:

• 56% of respondents still rely on spreadsheets for reconciliation
• 47% say they only partially automate reconciliation
• 35% have experienced financial discrepancies directly caused by reconciliation errors
• 82% have missed at least one reporting deadline due to poor data preparation
• Pre-reconciliation data preparation takes 3 hours on average

These aren’t edge cases. They’re everyday inefficiencies that show how partial automation creates more friction than in solves.

The data paints a clear picture: fragmented processes break audit trails, delay reporting and increase your exposure to regulatory scrutiny.

What defines a true reconciliation solution?

If you want to futureproof your finance operations, your reconciliation solution must go far beyond basic transaction matching. It should be a flexible, scalable infrastructure for ingesting, interpreting and validating financial data across your entire payments stack. Here’s what that really means in practice:

Automated data ingestion at scale

A reconciliation solution should automatically ingest data from a wide range of structured and semi-structured sources—including processors, issuing/acquiring banks, scheme partners, core banking platforms and internal ledgers.

It should support formats (like CSV, XML, XLS and JSON) and convert disparate inputs into a common structure without manual mapping or scripting. This is critical when you’re dealing with high-frequency updates across multiple providers and need to minimise lag between data receipt and processing.

Robust data standardisation + integrity controls

Effective standardisation ensures data is made usable across reporting systems. Look for features like:

• Automatic parsing and separation of merged fields (e.g., timestamp and currency in the same column)
• Normalisation of values (e.g., currency rounding rules, localised timestamp conversion)
• Retention of unaltered raw files for auditability
• Locked fields to prevent retroactive edits

This ensures data can be reused confidently across reconciliations, reports, dashboards and audits without introducing version control risk.

Multi-layered matching logic + exception workflows

Transaction structures vary widely. A real solution must support complex relationship mapping, including:

• One-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many relationships
• Tolerances on amounts and dates
• Multi-stage or chained reconciliations (e.g., processor > ledger > bank)
• Time-based sequencing logic (e.g., pre-authorisation → settlement → chargeback)

When mismatches or breaks occur, they should be triaged automatically into exception queues with rule-based routing to assigned case managers, ensuring nothing gets lost in a spreadsheet tab. This level of exception handling speeds up resolution and gives teams full visibility into where, how and why breaks happen.

Regulatory reporting infrastructure

You shouldn’t need to manually compile regulatory or scheme-specific reports. A reconciliation solution should offer:

• Pre-formatted templates (e.g., Mastercard QMR, Visa GOC, FCA safeguarding reports)
• Automated generation and secure distribution
• Sign-off workflows, version tracking and time-stamped approvals
• Role-based access and view-only permissions for external auditors or regulators

When deadlines are tight and the stakes are high, repeatable accuracy matters more than presentation.

Data access, security and collaboration

You should never have to export sensitive data to a spreadsheet just to share it. A proper solution enables:

• Tiered access permissions by user role or data category
• Read-only, time-limited links for auditors and partners
• Built-in audit logs for all user actions and report changes
• Integration into secure cloud environments with SOC2-grade controls

Security and collaboration can—and should—coexist in a modern data stack.

What a reconciliation solution enables your team to do

It’s not just about “saving time.” A full-stack reconciliation solution transforms how finance and data teams operate:

Shift from reactive to proactive

When reconciliations run continuously, issues are flagged in near real-time, not discovered days later. Teams can focus on root-cause investigation rather than manual checking.

Support new business models without chaos

Launching new products, entering new markets or adding new providers doesn’t require rebuilding processes from scratch. With flexible ingestion and dynamic reconciliation rules, new workflows can be stood up rapidly and safely.

Gain complete data visibility

Challenges with payment reconciliation often stem from data issues: how it’s managed, how it’s obtained and how easy it is to compare across systems. With granular matching visibility, metadata tagging and historic snapshots, teams can explore every transaction lifecycle in context—from authorisation to settlement and refund.

Improve regulatory resilience

Audit prep becomes a non-event. When every reconciliation, report and data edit is logged and reproducible, regulators get instant access to what they need, when they need it.

Reduce fraud and operational risk

Automated break detection flags anomalies earlier, before they propagate through downstream systems. Time isn’t wasted reconciling known errors; attention goes to fixing them.

Enable finance teams to become data-driven

With less time spent on formatting and fixing data, analysts can focus on trend detection, revenue insights or root-cause variance analysis. This shift transforms finance into a strategic contributor.

This is the real power of a reconciliation solution over a tool: not just matching transactions, but enabling teams to extract value from the underlying data.

Final thoughts: It’s time to level up

Reconciliation is no longer a back-office chore. It’s a vital part of running a compliant, efficient and scalable fintech operation.

The right reconciliation solution isn’t just about automation—it’s about control. Full visibility across your transaction data, instant reporting, airtight audit trails and confidence that your numbers always add up.

If your current setup feels like a patchwork of tools and spreadsheets, it might be time to ask: Are we just ticking boxes… or building for the future?

Ready to see how Kani can transform your reconciliation process?

Book a demo here

The need for smart transaction reporting

Payments and banking companies process huge volumes of transactional data daily—covering everything from authorisations and settlements to chargebacks and refunds. As businesses grow, so does the complexity of this data, spanning multiple payment providers, internal systems and compliance frameworks.

Attempting to report on transactions using spreadsheets is slow, unreliable and full of risk. Manual data prep and validation only add friction, creating delays and increasing the chances of errors or missed regulatory requirements.

To keep pace, businesses need transaction reporting software that offers more than basic report generation. A robust solution should deliver accuracy, real-time insight and full visibility across all sources, empowering teams to report confidently and stay compliant at scale.

Before you choose a reporting platform, it’s important to first understand what makes a solution truly effective, especially in a space where errors, delays and compliance risks can have serious consequences.

Why reporting software matters: What the data tells us

According to Kani’s 2025 Reconciliation & Reporting Survey, reporting remains a major challenge across the industry:

• 56% still rely on spreadsheets for core reconciliation and reporting
• 82% have missed reporting deadlines due to inefficiencies
• 53% say that creating reports is too time consuming
• 28% say that reconciliation errors delay reporting outputs

These operational issues represent compliance risk, inefficiency and lost strategic potential. A robust transaction reporting solution can help reclaim that time, ensure accuracy and give teams the clarity they need.

To help you evaluate your options, here’s a checklist of the key features to look for in modern transaction reporting software:

Multi-source data consolidation & standardisation

Transaction data originates from a wide range of sources—banks, payment processors, card schemes and internal ledgers. Without a way to consolidate and standardise it all, reporting becomes fragmented and difficult to trust. A strong solution should:

• Ingest structured and semi-structured files (CSV, PDF, XML, settlement files, etc.)
• Standardise transactions across currencies, providers and time zones
• Reconcile inputs across ledgers and banks to ensure accuracy before reporting

Effective transaction reporting software automates upstream data handling to reduce manual overhead, ensuring you’re reporting on a single source of truth.

Streamlined reporting workflows

Large-scale transactional data can be overwhelming to manage. Your reporting platform should simplify the process from ingestion through to submission, with:

• Pre-built templates for common reporting outputs (e.g., card scheme, safeguarding, chargeback summaries)
• Configurable reports tailored for internal teams, execs or regulators
• Scheduling and automation tools to remove last-minute scrambles

Whether for operational monitoring, client SLAs or regulatory deadlines, the right tool delivers accuracy and consistency without the manual lift.

Real-time dashboards & variance tracking

Static reports offer little visibility into what’s changing right now. The best solutions offer live monitoring and deep interactivity, with features like:

• Custom dashboards to track KPIs and transaction volumes
• Drill-down capability to investigate individual entries
• Alerts for anomalies, delays or reconciliation breaks

With real-time insights, your teams can proactively manage exceptions and act on trends, rather than reviewing them long after the fact.

Predictive analytics & fraud detection

Modern regulators want firms to identify and prevent fraud before it escalates. That’s why transaction reporting software should go beyond historical summaries and provide:

• Pattern recognition across payment flows
• Early warning signals based on predictive analytics
• Alerts for high-risk transactions, duplicate charges or unusual behaviours

This gives finance and compliance teams the edge they need to prevent fraud, reduce chargebacks and protect customer trust.

Multi-currency & multi-entity reporting

For companies operating across markets or regions, managing transaction data at scale can be painful. Look for software that:

• Automatically converts and reconciles multiple currencies
• Consolidates reporting across subsidiaries, business units or platforms
• Offers filters by region, merchant type or transaction channel

A unified reporting approach reduces silos and simplifies oversight—no matter how complex your operational footprint becomes.

Security, access & audit-readiness

Transactional data is sensitive, and so are the reports built from it. A true enterprise-grade solution should protect data integrity with features like:

• Role-based access controls for users, auditors and third parties
• Formal sign-off workflows and version tracking
• Read-only links for regulatory access
• Full audit trails for every report edit or user interaction

This is essential not only for compliance, but also for building trust in your reporting practices both internally and externally.

Final thoughts: Aim for control

If you’re still relying on spreadsheets or siloed systems to manage transactional reporting, the risk is real: slower processes, regulatory exposure and preventable errors.

The best transaction reporting software gives you complete control. It automates the hard parts, flags issues early and ensures every number you share is precisely what it should be.

Before you commit, benchmark your current process against these six features. Because when it comes to reporting, accuracy isn’t optional—it’s everything.

Ready to see how Kani can power your transaction reporting?

Book a demo here

In today’s fast-paced payments landscape, reconciliation processes are under constant pressure from real-time data demands, multi-currency transactions and escalating regulatory scrutiny. Meeting these requirements calls for advanced reconciliation tools, scalable workflows and real-time visibility.

Yet our 2025 payments reconciliation and reporting survey revealed an inconvenient truth: finance teams are still battling with spreadsheets, manual spot-checks and cobbled-together in-house systems—fighting a losing battle against growing complexity.

At first, managing reconciliation processes via spreadsheets might feel manageable, until they quietly stall your ability to grow.

But how can you tell that you’re in need of modernisation?

If any of the below signs sound familiar, it’s a flashing red light that it’s time to automate your reconciliations before today’s inefficiencies become tomorrow’s liabilities.

1) You’re spending hours preparing data

If your team spends more time getting ready to reconcile than actually reconciling, you have a problem.

Our survey found UK payments companies lose an average of three hours just gathering, cleaning and formatting data before reconciliation can even start.

Multiply that by every reconciliation cycle, and the opportunity cost is staggering.

Automated reconciliation software cuts straight through this inefficiency. It standardises data from multiple sources instantly, enriches transactions with metadata, flags anomalies in real time and frees your team to do actual problem-solving rather than endless data wrangling.

It also slashes the manual errors that sneak in during data staging, setting you up for cleaner, faster reconciliations from the start.

2. You’re missing reporting deadlines (and paying for it)

82% of businesses surveyed admitted to frequently struggling with reporting deadlines, whether for regulatory reports, internal audits or Mastercard and Visa submissions. As regulators place the payments industry under greater scrutiny, late reports represent a material compliance and reputational risk.

A modern reconciliation tool delivers far more than high-volume transaction matching—it’s your end-to-end reporting engine, generating precise outputs with a single click. With pre-formatted regulatory templates, audit-ready transaction histories and exception alerts, businesses can meet every reporting deadline with confidence and reduce the risk of costly penalties.

3. You’re seeing a rise in financial discrepancies and errors

No business surveyed reported having an error-free reconciliation process. In fact, as transaction complexity grows, outdated and fragmented workflows become the root cause of financial discrepancies.

Human error and poor system integration account for 44% of all reconciliation errors. Without early detection, these errors snowball into major downstream issues, like cash flow challenges, weakened financial reporting integrity and even barriers to attracting investment.

With the right automated platform, discrepancies are caught early through dynamic matching logic, intelligent exception handling and real-time variance tracking, protecting both your bottom line and your credibility.

The result? Stronger controls, higher quality data and reduced exposure to regulatory risk.

4. You can’t keep up with transaction volumes

As your business scales, so do your reconciliation challenges.

Whether it’s cross-border payments, multiple payment channels or high-frequency transaction environments, manual methods simply can’t keep pace.

In our survey, nearly half (45%) of respondents pointed to cross-currency transactions and high data volumes as significant bottlenecks in the reconciliation process. Without scalable automation, teams fall into endless cycles of managing exceptions, patching fragmented systems and scrambling to meet reporting deadlines.

Automated reconciliation solutions are designed to scale with you. They handle large, fragmented data sets across multiple acquirers, processors, card schemes and currencies. They also automate settlement matching, FX reconciliations and bank validations at scale, ensuring that your growth doesn’t mean sacrificing control or compliance.

5. Your back-office is focused on firefighting, not strategy

When reconciliation becomes a daily grind just to keep up, it robs your finance and operations teams of the chance to add real strategic value. Instead of analysing trends, optimising processes or contributing to business growth, they’re stuck manually cross-checking transactions or chasing down discrepancies.

With end-to-end automation, you empower your team to shift from reactive to proactive. Instead of fighting fires, they can surface actionable insights from your transaction data, identify fraud patterns faster and support strategic decision-making while reconciliation processes tick along in the background.

Final thoughts: Treat reconciliation as a strategic advantage, not just a process

If you recognised even one of these signs, it’s time to rethink your approach to reconciliation. Relying on outdated manual processes actively blocks your ability to grow, compete and comply in an increasingly complex payments landscape.

And let’s not forget: profitability in payments is volume-driven. Scalable, automated back-office operations are critical if you want to protect margins as transaction volumes rise.

If your systems can’t keep up, neither can your profitability.

Platforms like Kani’s automated reconciliation solution future-proof your finance operations with simplified workflows, iron-clad financial controls and real-time reporting—all while scaling effortlessly alongside your business.

Ready to see how Kani can take your reconciliations to the next level?

Book a demo here

The April 2025 Regulatory Initiatives Grid lays out a pivotal regulatory roadmap for the UK payments sector.

We’ve broken down the key initiatives you need to know—from safeguarding reforms to crypto market rules—and what they mean for businesses navigating the next wave of compliance.

Strengthening safeguarding rules

The FCA plans a two-stage overhaul of safeguarding rules for e-money and payments firms. Initially, interim rules will strengthen compliance with existing obligations under the E-Money and Payment Services Regulations—expected to be finalised by mid-2025 and enforced in H1 2026. Longer term, pending legislative changes by HMT, a new end-state regime will require relevant client funds to be explicitly held on trust for consumers, offering greater legal clarity and protection.

Safeguarding is already a core compliance area. Under existing FCA rules, firms must:

• Perform daily reconciliation between internal records and safeguarded accounts
• Use segregated safeguarding accounts
• Conduct annual audits and maintain safeguarding documentation for at least five years

With more emphasis placed on safeguarding compliance in the next 18 months, payments and e-money businesses will have to reassess how well their existing financial control processes adhere to these fundamentals.

Requirements for a new cryptoassets regime

Following Treasury legislation, the FCA will take on responsibility for new Regulated Activities Order (RAO), including secondary markets, admissions and anti-market abuse controls. This will align crypto oversight with that seen in securities markets. The FCA’s roadmap includes at least four consultation papers and one discussion paper in 2025, detailing rules on disclosure, admission standards and governance.

This builds on existing AML registration rules and follows similar efforts in the EU (MiCA) and US. Custodians and exchanges may need reconciliations akin to CASS rules, especially for segregating client and proprietary assets.

Payment services contract termination rules

HMT intends to legislate reforms to the Payment Services Regulations in H1 2025 to restrict arbitrary or opaque provider-initiated contract terminations, especially those impacting SME customers or fintechs in correspondent arrangements.

Contractual risk tip: Firms should review termination clauses and onboarding/offboarding procedures to ensure they align with expected fairness and transparency standards.

Digital pound design phase

Following the National Payments Vision, the BoE and HMT are progressing with the design phase for a potential UK central bank digital currency (CBDC). No final implementation decision has been made, but the intent is to enshrine user privacy via primary legislation if launched.

Strategic tip: CBDCs may eventually interact with commercial PSP systems and require real-time reconciliations, programmable wallets and fraud/AML traceability layers. Forward-looking firms should track BoE and Treasury engagement forums.

Review of RTGS and CHAPS settlement hours

The BoE may extend Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and Clearing House Automated Payment System (CHAPS) operating hours to support 24/7 domestic payments. A phased approach is planned, with no changes before 2027. In 2025, the Bank will publish a consultation paper on its phased implementation, and at least one year’s notice will be given before changing current hours.

Reconciliation impact: Firms operating near real-time or batch settlement workflows should prepare for longer operating hours, potentially including overnight liquidity coverage and intraday automated reconciliation.

Financial services regulation of cryptoassets

Draft legislation in 2025 will establish a comprehensive regulatory regime for cryptoassets, including stablecoins, under the FSMA framework. This will address authorisation, prudential standards and consumer protection rules.

Regulatory alignment: This legislation bridges gaps between crypto and traditional financial systems, suggesting future CASS-style reconciliation and reporting obligations for crypto businesses.

APP scam prevention and compensation

The PSR is embedding its new reimbursement requirements for Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud. In 2025, it will launch a consultation on claims management systems and publish reports on historical fraud outcomes. An independent evaluation is due in 2026.

Tip: Firms should enhance their fraud resolution and claims processing logic, ensuring timely reconciliation between fraud detection and dispute management systems.

Market review: Card fees & cross-border charges

The PSR will conclude its market review into UK card scheme and processing fees in early 2025 and consult on remedies. A separate review into the post-Brexit increase in cross-border interchange fees between the UK and EEA is also progressing, with remedies expected in 2025/26.

Insight: The review could lead to potential caps or structural changes affecting issuer/acquirer fee reconciliations, especially for cross-border e-commerce PSPs.

Repeal of EU payments law

The UK will revoke and replace retained EU law including the PSRs, EMRs and Interchange Fees Regulation. The FCA and HMT will announce their consultation plans later in 2025.

Compliance tip: Begin impact assessments for areas tied to EU law (e.g., 8-week refund rights, SCA exemptions, FX disclosure rules). A UK-specific framework may streamline these—or increase divergence for cross-border PSPs.

Summary of key actions:

• Review safeguarding processes now to prepare for upcoming trust-based safeguarding requirements
• Track crypto consultation papers and consider future RAO authorisation requirements
• Audit contract termination policies in line with upcoming fairness rules
• Monitor digital pound developments and plan for potential PSP system impacts
• Prepare for extended RTGS/CHAPS hours with liquidity and operational adjustments
• Anticipate cryptoasset prudential regulation under the FSMA framework
• Strengthen APP scam management and fraud reconciliation systems
• Prepare for possible changes to card and cross-border fee structures
• Begin EU law replacement assessments ahead of UK-specific reforms

This article summarises regulatory developments and should not be construed as legal advice 

Every quarter, payments teams brace for the same battle: gather the data, clean the data, fix the formats, chase the exceptions—then somehow get the Mastercard QMR or Visa GOC report submitted on time.

Despite being essential to card scheme compliance and operational health, QMR and GOC reporting remains weighed down by legacy tech, data complexity and upstream inefficiencies.

In our 2025 Card Scheme Reporting Survey, UK payments companies said they spend an average of 142 hours per year preparing Mastercard and Visa scheme submissions. For companies managing both, that figure jumps to 184 hours—nearly a full working month.

Why is it still this hard?

The real bottlenecks aren’t in the reports. They’re in the process

QMR and GOC reports themselves are just the final output. The inefficiencies begin much earlier—with messy data, siloed systems and manual workflows.

Our research found three main culprits:

• Exception handling was the biggest time sink, cited by 33%
• Data collection followed closely at 30%
• Reconciliation rounded out the top three at 29%

When every file arrives in a different format, from a different processor, with its own quirks and missing fields, the real work begins long before the report does. Teams are forced to chase down fragmented data across departments, manually enrich and validate incomplete records and spend hours aligning mismatched fields just to reach a submission-ready state.

By the time the QMR or GOC file is finally generated, most of the effort has already been spent cleaning up the inputs. It’s no wonder reporting deadlines often feel like fire drills.

Excel isn’t helping

Despite the rise of specialised reporting platforms, 44% of organisations still rely on spreadsheets—partially or exclusively—to manage QMR or GOC reporting. While Excel offers flexibility, it also creates:

• Poor version control
• Manual data entry risk
• Limited scalability
• Formatting inconsistencies
• Weak audit trails

Put simply: Excel was never designed for regulated financial submissions. And it clearly wasn’t built for the complex, multi-currency data environments that payments companies now operate in.

The reconciliation link

One of the most under-recognised factors in scheme reporting inefficiencies is the state of reconciliation.

Clean reporting starts with clean data. And clean data starts with reconciled records.

But many payments teams still treat reconciliation as a standalone task—disconnected from the wider reporting function. This creates friction, duplication and increased risk as the same data is handled multiple times across different tools and teams.

When reconciliation is incomplete, reporting becomes a game of guesswork. That’s a gamble no regulated business can afford to take. It’s why automated reconciliation software is increasingly seen not just as a time-saver, but as a foundational component of the reporting workflow.

What automation really solves

To get scheme reporting under control, payments teams need more than faster templates or better spreadsheets. They need end-to-end automation that starts at the source and finishes at submission.

Modern reporting platforms—especially those built with automated reconciliation in mind—help to:

• Ingest and validate multi-source data at scale
• Standardise formats to match Mastercard and Visa requirements
• Handle currency conversions and FX rate alignment
• Flag and route exceptions early, before they delay a report
• Create an audit trail that supports internal sign-off and regulatory review

And the benefits are clear: in our survey, companies cited data accuracy (45%), compliance (39%) and cost-effectiveness (39%) as the top reasons they’re either implementing or considering automation.

Rethinking reporting from end to end

Mastercard QMR and Visa GOC reporting isn’t just a quarterly scramble—it’s a direct reflection of how well payments data is managed, reconciled and aligned.

As scheme requirements become more detailed, the old patchwork processes no longer scale. What was once a tolerated inefficiency is now a threat to compliance, operational clarity and team productivity.

The real opportunity isn’t just to automate the output. It’s to streamline the entire journey—from raw data to report-ready.

That starts with integrated reconciliation.

It continues with consistent data logic.

And it ends with submissions that don’t require fire drills to meet the deadline.

Final thoughts

QMR and GOC reporting will never be optional. But it can be radically simpler.

By connecting reconciliation software to a purpose-built reporting engine, payments teams can eliminate manual clean-up, reduce risk and spend less time fighting with formats—and more time focused on strategy.

If your team is still wrestling with spreadsheets and rushing to meet scheme deadlines, it’s time to move beyond short-term fixes. The future of card scheme reporting is fully automated, auditable and always-on.

Ready to see how Kani can take your Mastercard QMR and Visa GOC reporting to the next level?

Book a demo here