[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":501},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-\u002Fblog\u002Ftesting-strategy-for-finance-systems":3,"blog-surround-\u002Fblog\u002Ftesting-strategy-for-finance-systems":479,"blog-related-\u002Fblog\u002Ftesting-strategy-for-finance-systems":488},{"id":4,"title":5,"audience":6,"body":10,"cluster":441,"date":442,"description":443,"draft":444,"extension":445,"factCheckedAt":446,"faq":447,"featured":444,"language":446,"meta":457,"navigation":458,"order":459,"originalAsset":446,"path":460,"pillar":461,"primaryKeyword":462,"relatedProject":446,"releaseScope":446,"reviewCycle":463,"reviewStatus":464,"reviewedBy":465,"searchIntent":466,"seo":467,"sources":446,"stem":468,"tags":469,"type":476,"updated":477,"__hash__":478},"blog\u002Fblog\u002Ftesting-strategy-for-finance-systems.md","Testing Strategy for Finance Systems: SIT, UAT and Regression",[7,8,9],"engineering-manager","solution-architect","finance-transformation-lead",{"type":11,"value":12,"toc":428},"minimark",[13,40,45,48,52,55,142,145,149,169,173,182,186,193,197,203,218,222,225,245,249,260,356,359,363,395,403,406],[14,15,16,20,21,25,26,29,30,33,34,39],"p",{},[17,18,19],"strong",{},"A testing strategy defines how you'll prove a finance system works before go-live — the layers of testing (unit, system integration, user acceptance, regression) and what each proves."," The key insight it encodes: different kinds of defect need different tests to catch them, and skipping a layer means a whole class of failure walks straight into production. In finance especially, testing must prove not just that ",[22,23,24],"em",{},"functions work"," but that ",[22,27,28],{},"numbers reconcile"," and ",[22,31,32],{},"integrations move data intact"," — because a silently dropped record becomes a wrong figure in the accounts. ",[35,36,38],"a",{"href":37},"\u002Fblog\u002Fuser-acceptance-testing-for-finance-systems","UAT"," alone, though vital, is not a testing strategy.",[41,42,44],"h2",{"id":43},"what-a-testing-strategy-is","What a testing strategy is",[14,46,47],{},"It's the deliberate plan for proving correctness: which test layers run, what each proves, what data they use, and the entry\u002Fexit criteria for each. Without it, testing becomes whatever people happened to check before a deadline — and the gaps are exactly where production incidents come from.",[41,49,51],{"id":50},"the-layers","The layers",[14,53,54],{},"Each layer catches a different class of defect:",[56,57,58,74],"table",{},[59,60,61],"thead",{},[62,63,64,68,71],"tr",{},[65,66,67],"th",{},"Layer",[65,69,70],{},"Proves",[65,72,73],{},"Run by",[75,76,77,91,104,117,130],"tbody",{},[62,78,79,85,88],{},[80,81,82],"td",{},[17,83,84],{},"Unit",[80,86,87],{},"Individual components work",[80,89,90],{},"Developers",[62,92,93,98,101],{},[80,94,95],{},[17,96,97],{},"System integration (SIT)",[80,99,100],{},"Connected systems work together",[80,102,103],{},"Technical team",[62,105,106,111,114],{},[80,107,108],{},[17,109,110],{},"User acceptance (UAT)",[80,112,113],{},"It does what the business needs",[80,115,116],{},"Business users",[62,118,119,124,127],{},[80,120,121],{},[17,122,123],{},"Regression",[80,125,126],{},"Existing function still works after changes",[80,128,129],{},"Team \u002F automated",[62,131,132,137,140],{},[80,133,134],{},[17,135,136],{},"(Performance)",[80,138,139],{},"It holds up under real volume, at period-end",[80,141,103],{},[14,143,144],{},"Miss one and its class of defect is untested.",[41,146,148],{"id":147},"sit-does-the-plumbing-work","SIT: does the plumbing work?",[14,150,151,154,155,158,159,163,164,168],{},[17,152,153],{},"System integration testing"," verifies the ",[22,156,157],{},"connected landscape"," — that interfaces move data intact between the ",[35,160,162],{"href":161},"\u002Fblog\u002Fdesigning-erp-tms-integration","ERP, the TMS, the banks"," and other systems, end to end. This is where finance systems most often break in ways UAT can't see: a feed that drops records, a format mismatch, a mapping error. SIT proves the ",[35,165,167],{"href":166},"\u002Fblog\u002Finterface-monitoring-and-reconciliation","interfaces"," carry the data correctly — using the same control-total logic (counts and sums, source vs target) that monitors them in production.",[41,170,172],{"id":171},"uat-is-the-result-fit-for-purpose","UAT: is the result fit for purpose?",[14,174,175,177,178,181],{},[35,176,38],{"href":37}," verifies the system does what the business actually needs, run by real users against real scenarios, ending in sign-off. It's the business's judgement that the system is fit for purpose. Crucially, it's ",[22,179,180],{},"not"," a substitute for SIT — a system can pass UAT on a screen while an interface silently drops data behind it. Different questions, different layers.",[41,183,185],{"id":184},"regression-did-we-break-what-already-worked","Regression: did we break what already worked?",[14,187,188,189,192],{},"Every change risks breaking something that previously worked. ",[17,190,191],{},"Regression testing"," re-checks existing functionality after changes, so a fix or enhancement doesn't silently break the close that ran fine last month. In finance, where the same processes run every period, regression is what keeps a change from turning last period's working number into this period's wrong one. It's the layer most often skipped and most quietly expensive.",[41,194,196],{"id":195},"why-finance-testing-is-different","Why finance testing is different",[198,199,200],"pull-quote",{},[14,201,202],{},"In most systems, testing asks \"does it work?\" In finance, it also has to ask \"does it reconcile?\" — because the output isn't a screen, it's a number that has to balance and tie back to source.",[14,204,205,206,209,210,213,214,217],{},"Finance testing must run ",[17,207,208],{},"real end-to-end scenarios"," — a full close, a payment run — with ",[17,211,212],{},"realistic data",", and ",[22,215,216],{},"check the totals",", not just the navigation. A happy-path click-through with toy data proves almost nothing about whether the month-end position will be right.",[41,219,221],{"id":220},"test-data-and-criteria","Test data and criteria",[14,223,224],{},"Two things make the layers meaningful:",[226,227,228,235],"ul",{},[229,230,231,234],"li",{},[17,232,233],{},"Realistic data"," — enough volume and messiness to surface the edge cases; clean toy data hides the problems you'll hit live.",[229,236,237,240,241,244],{},[17,238,239],{},"Entry\u002Fexit criteria"," — agreed definitions of when a layer can start and when it's genuinely passed, so testing ends because it's ",[22,242,243],{},"done",", not because time ran out.",[41,246,248],{"id":247},"entry-and-exit-criteria-by-layer","Entry and exit criteria by layer",[14,250,251,252,255,256,259],{},"\"Entry and exit criteria\" is the phrase that turns a testing plan into a gate. Each layer should say when it can ",[22,253,254],{},"start"," and when it's genuinely ",[22,257,258],{},"passed"," — and, in finance, the defect bar that lets you move on.",[56,261,262,277],{},[59,263,264],{},[62,265,266,268,271,274],{},[65,267,67],{},[65,269,270],{},"Can start when (entry)",[65,272,273],{},"Passed when (exit)",[65,275,276],{},"Defect bar to move on",[75,278,279,294,310,325,340],{},[62,280,281,285,288,291],{},[80,282,283],{},[17,284,84],{},[80,286,287],{},"Component built",[80,289,290],{},"Component tests green",[80,292,293],{},"No open critical\u002Fmajor in the component",[62,295,296,301,304,307],{},[80,297,298],{},[17,299,300],{},"SIT",[80,302,303],{},"Interfaces built, environment ready",[80,305,306],{},"Data ties source ↔ target end to end",[80,308,309],{},"No open defect that drops or corrupts data",[62,311,312,316,319,322],{},[80,313,314],{},[17,315,38],{},[80,317,318],{},"SIT passed; real scenarios + realistic data",[80,320,321],{},"Business signs off on real scenarios",[80,323,324],{},"No open critical; agreed cap on minors",[62,326,327,331,334,337],{},[80,328,329],{},[17,330,123],{},[80,332,333],{},"A baseline suite exists",[80,335,336],{},"Prior functions still pass after the change",[80,338,339],{},"Zero regressions on money-affecting paths",[62,341,342,347,350,353],{},[80,343,344],{},[17,345,346],{},"Performance",[80,348,349],{},"Volume test data staged",[80,351,352],{},"Holds at period-end volume within SLA",[80,354,355],{},"No breach at peak load",[14,357,358],{},"The exit column is the one that gets skipped under deadline pressure — and skipping it is exactly how \"testing finished\" comes to mean \"time ran out,\" not \"the system is proven.\"",[41,360,362],{"id":361},"what-usually-goes-wrong","What usually goes wrong",[226,364,365,371,377,383,389],{},[229,366,367,370],{},[17,368,369],{},"Only UAT."," Relying on user testing alone, so integration and regression defects reach production.",[229,372,373,376],{},[17,374,375],{},"No SIT."," Interfaces untested end-to-end, so a feed that drops data is discovered in the first live close.",[229,378,379,382],{},[17,380,381],{},"No regression."," Changes break existing function silently, and last period's good number goes wrong.",[229,384,385,388],{},[17,386,387],{},"Toy data."," Clean, tiny datasets that never trigger the real-world edge cases.",[229,390,391,394],{},[17,392,393],{},"No exit criteria."," Testing \"finishes\" at the deadline regardless of whether it passed.",[14,396,397,398,402],{},"Run the layers that catch each class of defect — unit, SIT, UAT, regression, performance — on realistic data, with real entry\u002Fexit criteria, and check that the numbers reconcile end to end. That's what turns testing from a pre-go-live scramble into genuine confidence that a ",[35,399,401],{"href":400},"\u002Fblog\u002Fcutover-and-go-live-for-finance-systems","cutover"," will hold. UAT tells you it's fit for purpose; the rest of the strategy tells you it actually works.",[404,405],"hr",{},[14,407,408],{},[22,409,410,411,415,416,29,419,422,423,427],{},"Part of the ",[35,412,414],{"href":413},"\u002Ftopics\u002Ffinance-systems-delivery","Finance Systems Delivery guide",". See also ",[35,417,418],{"href":37},"user acceptance testing",[35,420,421],{"href":166},"interface monitoring and reconciliation",". The ",[35,424,426],{"href":425},"\u002Fnewsletter","newsletter"," sends one finance-systems pattern, product decision or build lesson every two weeks.",{"title":429,"searchDepth":430,"depth":430,"links":431},"",2,[432,433,434,435,436,437,438,439,440],{"id":43,"depth":430,"text":44},{"id":50,"depth":430,"text":51},{"id":147,"depth":430,"text":148},{"id":171,"depth":430,"text":172},{"id":184,"depth":430,"text":185},{"id":195,"depth":430,"text":196},{"id":220,"depth":430,"text":221},{"id":247,"depth":430,"text":248},{"id":361,"depth":430,"text":362},"execution","2026-07-23","A testing strategy defines how you prove a finance system works before go-live — unit, SIT, UAT and regression. In finance, the numbers must reconcile too.",false,"md",null,[448,451,454],{"question":449,"answer":450},"What is a testing strategy?","A testing strategy is the plan for how a system's correctness will be proven before go-live — which layers of testing will run (unit, system integration testing, user acceptance testing, regression, and often performance), what each layer proves, what data they use, and the entry and exit criteria for each. It ensures testing is deliberate and complete rather than an ad hoc scramble, and that the different kinds of defect — component bugs, integration failures, wrong business outcomes, and breakages of existing function — are each caught by the layer designed to find them.",{"question":452,"answer":453},"What is the difference between SIT and UAT?","System integration testing (SIT) verifies that the connected systems work together correctly — that interfaces move data intact between the ERP, the TMS, the banks and other systems, end to end. It's a technical test of the integrated landscape. User acceptance testing (UAT) verifies that the system does what the business actually needs, run by the real users against real scenarios. SIT proves the plumbing works; UAT proves the result is fit for purpose. You need both — a system can pass UAT in isolation and still fail because an interface silently drops data.",{"question":455,"answer":456},"Why is testing finance systems different?","Because finance testing has to prove not just that functions work but that the numbers reconcile and that data moves intact across integrated systems. A finance system's output is positions, payments and postings that must balance to the penny and tie back to source, so testing has to run real end-to-end scenarios — a full close, a payment run — with realistic data and check the totals, not just click through screens. Integration and reconciliation testing matter far more than in most systems, because a silently dropped record becomes a wrong number in the accounts.",{},true,5.5,"\u002Fblog\u002Ftesting-strategy-for-finance-systems","finance-systems-delivery","testing strategy finance systems","annual","reviewed","Tan Gravam","informational",{"title":5,"description":443},"blog\u002Ftesting-strategy-for-finance-systems",[470,471,472,473,474,475],"delivery","testing","sit","uat","regression","finance-systems","text","2026-07-26","Mw4EhBTwf9atuQFZBzVR2ia2fTnpYbP4vAItR6CY000",[480,484],{"title":481,"path":482,"stem":483,"type":476,"language":446,"draft":444,"children":-1},"SWIFT gpi: Tracking Cross-Border Payments","\u002Fblog\u002Fswift-gpi-tracking-cross-border-payments","blog\u002Fswift-gpi-tracking-cross-border-payments",{"title":485,"path":486,"stem":487,"type":476,"language":446,"draft":444,"children":-1},"TMS Cloud Security and Data Residency","\u002Fblog\u002Ftms-cloud-security-and-data-residency","blog\u002Ftms-cloud-security-and-data-residency",[489,493,497],{"path":490,"title":491,"description":492},"\u002Fblog\u002Ffit-gap-analysis-for-finance-systems","Fit-Gap Analysis for Finance Systems","A fit-gap analysis compares what a standard system does against what the business needs — fit, gap, or change the process. Avoiding the customization trap.",{"path":494,"title":495,"description":496},"\u002Fblog\u002Fsolution-design-and-blueprint-for-finance-systems","Solution Design and Blueprint for Finance Systems","How to turn agreed requirements into a signed solution design before build starts — and why skipping the blueprint is what quietly buys you months of rework.",{"path":498,"title":499,"description":500},"\u002Fblog\u002Fconfiguration-vs-customization-finance-systems","Configuration vs Customization in Finance Systems","Configuration fits your process using shipped settings; customization builds bespoke — a permanent liability paid at every upgrade.",1785182342278]