Key takeaways
- Define the account being prepared and the event scope it needs.
- Review material gaps before refining the presentation of the record.
- Match each important event to its source and status.
- Keep contractual interpretation separate from factual data preparation.
- Release the record with explicit exceptions where an authorised provisional analysis is appropriate.
Define what the account needs to explain
BIMCO identifies an established Standard Statement of Facts. Using a familiar form does not itself establish that a completed record contains every input needed for a particular account. Check the current text of the charter and the actual voyage arrangement before deciding what matters.
Begin by identifying the account's scope. Is the team analysing a loading call, a discharge call or a combined position across several operations? Which factual events support the proposed commencement, interruption and completion treatment? A record can be detailed yet omit an event central to the intended analysis.
The reviewer should not start by polishing formatting. A missing event boundary can affect the account more than inconsistent date presentation. Establish the material requirements first, then improve the record's readability once its substantive limits are understood.
Keep the review question commercial: can this record support the analysis the principal is about to rely on, and what assumptions remain? That is more useful than a general declaration that the SOF looks complete.
Separate missing facts from uncertain rules
A missing fact is something the record does not establish, such as which event a time refers to or why a reported interruption ended. The next step is to seek information from the relevant source.
An uncertain rule concerns how established facts should be treated under the charter. The next step is contractual review. Asking the agent to resolve the rule may produce an operational opinion that does not answer the legal question. Asking a lawyer to identify an unrecorded event may merely delay the factual inquiry.
Some issues contain both elements. The team may need to establish the actual event and then assess its significance. State the sequence explicitly. Otherwise, an adviser may be asked to analyse hypothetical facts that the desk later discovers were inaccurate.
The account preparer should see this distinction in the working file. A factual gap should not be hidden by selecting a convenient rule, and a disputed rule should not be presented as a missing operational confirmation.
Check the record's internal logic
Read the event sequence as a narrative. Does a reported completion follow the relevant activity? Is a resumed operation linked to the interruption that preceded it? Does an entry describe an event, a forecast or a later summary? Apparent inconsistencies need clarification before they become calculation inputs.
Do not assume every gap represents inactivity. The absence of an entry may mean that nothing material changed, or it may reflect incomplete recording. Identify the importance of the gap to the proposed account and obtain proportionate clarification.
Likewise, duplicate-looking entries may describe different stages. A document release, operational completion and vessel departure can be related without being the same event. The reviewer should understand the source definitions before deleting or combining them.
Check that the time basis is intelligible throughout. Preserve original source values and any explained conversion. If a record changes its time convention without explanation, obtain clarification rather than forcing a consistent appearance through unverified adjustment.
Route material exceptions before calculation
| Exception | Why it matters | Review route |
|---|---|---|
| Missing event central to the proposed account | The calculation lacks a necessary factual input | Responsible source and operations reviewer |
| Contradictory activity sequence | The apparent chronology may be wrong | Document preparer and relevant witnesses or records |
| Clear facts but disputed counting treatment | The uncertainty is contractual | Claims or legal adviser |
| Unexplained qualification or reservation | The status of agreement is unclear | Authorised principal and adviser |
| Minor presentation inconsistency | Readability suffers without changing the known event | Document preparer |
| Unresolved but bounded factual issue | A provisional comparison may be possible | Account preparer with authorised assumptions |
This table is a routing method, not an instruction to delay every account until every detail is perfect. The principal may need a provisional view while a limited issue is investigated. The important condition is that the assumption and its significance are explicit and appropriately authorised.
Prioritise issues by their effect on the decision. A gap affecting the central commencement position deserves different attention from a spelling correction. The reviewer should be able to explain that distinction without assigning invented financial consequences to an uncalculated scenario.
Fictional case: a complete-looking record omits the key event
In a fictional voyage account, the discharge SOF contains a detailed sequence of cargo activity and interruptions. The preparer imports it into the account and begins checking individual periods. The record looks comprehensive, so the opening assumption receives little attention.
A reviewer notices that the event relied on for the proposed commencement position is not actually established by the SOF or attached communications. The spreadsheet has filled the gap using a field copied from a preliminary port summary. The detailed treatment of later interruptions cannot repair that missing foundation.
The team pauses reliance on the final result and seeks the relevant source evidence. It also asks the adviser to identify how the confirmed facts should be treated under the charter. A provisional account can still be discussed if its assumptions are clearly stated, but it is not presented as a settled result.
The fictional case illustrates why review should begin with the account's central inputs rather than the apparent density of the port chronology. More entries do not necessarily mean better support for the decisive commercial question.
Release a usable record with visible limits
The review output should identify the version examined, the scope of the account and the material exceptions. It should state which factual inputs are supported, which remain disputed and which counting questions have been referred for advice.
Avoid a single “approved SOF” stamp that conceals these distinctions. A record can be approved for use in a provisional analysis without being agreed by all parties or free from every evidential gap. The release note should describe the actual permitted use.
The account preparer should retain a link from each material assumption to the relevant source or decision. If new evidence changes the input, the team can locate the affected part of the analysis. This makes corrections more precise and prevents a revised document from silently changing the account's basis.
Finally, review the completed account against the release conditions. A preparer may inadvertently treat a provisional input as final or omit a qualification when summarising the result. The principal's decision should be based on the analysis as actually prepared, including its remaining uncertainty.
Common mistakes
The main mistake is assuming that a detailed SOF is necessarily sufficient for the intended account. Identify the central inputs first. Another is asking the wrong person to resolve an exception, such as treating a counting dispute as a request for operational confirmation.
Do not equate formatting consistency with factual consistency. Avoid deleting similar entries before understanding their meaning. Finally, ensure that provisional assumptions remain visible in the final account summary; an accurate review note is insufficient if the commercial recommendation omits its limitations.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Must every SOF issue be resolved before any account is prepared?
Not necessarily. An authorised provisional analysis may be useful if its assumptions and limitations are explicit. Material gaps should be assessed for their effect on the decision rather than hidden or treated as settled facts.
Who should review the factual sequence?
The document preparer and responsible operational sources should clarify the events. Claims and legal reviewers assess contractual significance. The process works best when the factual and interpretive questions are clearly distinguished.
Is an approved SOF the same as an agreed time account?
No such assumption should be made. The approval's scope must be identified, and contractual treatment remains a separate question. Preserve qualifications and avoid overstating what the parties have agreed.
What is the final check before relying on the account?
Confirm that the calculation uses the reviewed inputs and preserves material exceptions. The principal should see the result together with the factual or contractual assumptions that could change it.