Sage reuses the same engine (CPTSIMVAL/CPTVALSIM) for both:
simulated entries generated from subledger modules, and
actual user‑created direct journals.
In the latter case, the logic is incorrect:
The system treats a direct journal as if it were subledger‑generated.
Therefore, it deletes the simulated journal and clones it under the RECUR/user context.
Impact
The original creator (e.g., JDOE) is irretrievable in the standard tables.
The journal receives new internal chronological line numbers, breaking BI and audit lineage.
No system‑provided audit trail remains tying the new GL entry back to the original user.
This violates audit requirements, SoD expectations, and your internal controls.
Sage R&D has escalated the issue but:
❌ Not classified as critical
❌ No hotfix planned
❌ No version timeline guaranteed
This is, unfortunately, expected Sage behavior for simulations—but it is a design flaw for direct journals, and auditors will not accept it.
pat daloisio
