The findings report

Send four statements. Get back the reconciliation.

An agent takes every charge line the state billed you, matches it to the separation it came from, scores it against that state’s own relief grounds, and marks it protest or correct. You read the report before you decide anything.

The audit is free and the report is yours whether or not you hire us.

212 charge lines were extracted from your 4 statements. 198 matched to a separation record and 14 did not. Of the matched lines, 31 carry a relief ground under Pennsylvania law and 167 are correct and take no action. The 14 unmatched lines are questions for you, not findings. A line we cannot match is never a line we protest.

Employer: 1148
State: Pennsylvania
Period: four quarters, 2025
Statements: 4 read
Separations: 431 ingested

This opens on every line the statements carried, in statement order, with the 31 that carry a relief ground marked in place and the 167 correct ones listed as correct.

Filter to the flagged lines with the chips if you want them on their own.

The reconciliation · 20 of 212 lines shownSPECIMEN

Line	Claimant	Claim eff.	Wks	Charged	Matched to	Ground	Verdict
0001	QUIN••••, W	2025-10-20	7	1,638.00	SEP-1803 · reduction in force	none	Correct
0002	LINH•••, C	2025-09-19	21	4,914.00	no match	Never employed here?	Review
0003	QUIN••••, I	2025-06-18	8	1,872.00	SEP-1806 · position eliminated	none	Correct
0004	FERR•••, L	2025-06-29	8	1,872.00	SEP-1809 · position eliminated	none	Correct
0005	EZEK••, T	2025-02-01	23	5,382.00	SEP-1812 · reduction in force	none	Correct
0006	HOLL••, F	2025-05-21	23	5,382.00	SEP-1815 · lack of work	none	Correct
0007	AKIN••••, W	2025-12-07	21	4,914.00	no match	Wrong employer account?	Review
0008	NAKA••••, N	2025-11-10	20	4,680.00	SEP-1818 · layoff	none	Correct
0009	KAUR, F	2025-11-09	15	3,510.00	no match	Identity mismatch?	Review
0010	BRIG•••••, F	2025-02-20	25	5,850.00	SEP-1821 · layoff	none	Correct
0011	PARR•••, H	2025-11-26	11	2,574.00	SEP-1824 · position eliminated	none	Correct
0012	RASM•••••, D	2025-10-24	7	1,638.00	SEP-1827 · layoff	none	Correct
0013	HOLL••, G	2025-02-03	8	1,872.00	SEP-1830 · position eliminated	none	Correct
0014	OSEI, A	2025-11-11	11	2,574.00	SEP-1833 · discharge	Disqualified on the separation	Protest
0015	URIB•, E	2025-09-26	8	1,872.00	SEP-1836 · lack of work	none	Correct
0016	LINH•••, Y	2025-07-31	13	3,042.00	SEP-1839 · position eliminated	none	Correct
0017	NAKA••••, D	2025-08-20	13	3,042.00	SEP-1842 · rehired	Rehired, charges continued	Protest
0018	QUIN••••, S	2025-07-15	20	4,680.00	SEP-1845 · lack of work	none	Correct
0019	SANT••, J	2025-11-18	26	6,084.00	SEP-1848 · reduction in force	none	Correct
0020	BALD•••, T	2025-10-20	16	3,744.00	SEP-1851 · layoff	none	Correct

Specimen. Counts are PRD §7.1's worked example; claimant names are invented and masked in the product's own convention, and dollar amounts are placeholders at a flat weekly figure because the specification states counts and not amounts.

Every line opens like this.

The figure came from a row on a page of a PDF, the match came from a row in your export, and the ground came from the state’s rules table, never from a summary of any of them. If a line cannot be traced, it is not protested.

DE 428T · DE428T-2025Q4.pdf · page 2, bytes 2448 to 2532

OSEI, A XXX-XX-6898 11 $2,574.00

Separation NG-10010 · your separations export

hired 2024-09-24 separated 2025-10-28 · involuntary reason Missed the documented productivity standard for two review cycles

Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code § 1032

Disqualified on the separation. The state's own determination disqualified this claimant for misconduct, and the charges continued anyway.

Every protest cites a ground the state’s own table contains.

Not a ground we think should apply. The rules table is code, sourced and dated per state, and a protest that cannot name an entry in it is never drafted. A ground with no line against it in this audit is listed anyway, so you can see what was looked for and not found.

Disqualified on the separationThe determination, and charges continuing after it9 lines
Voluntary quit, no good causeThe resignation, the stated reason, and the work that stayed available12 lines
Discharged for misconductA known rule, the claimant's awareness of it, a final incident, and a prompt dischargenone found
Rehired, charges continuedThe rehire date, in your own separations export6 lines
Base period below thresholdWeeks worked and wages by quarter4 lines
Charge belongs to a later employerThe separation that actually opened the claimnone found
Refused recallThe offer, the date, the terms, and the refusalnone found
On an approved leaveThe leave record, grounds are narrower for reimbursing employersnone found
Never employed hereYour own answer to the questionnaire, no hire record, no wage record, no I-9none found

And the protest, written in the order an adjudicator reads.

Dates. Then the policy. Then the warnings with dates. Then the final incident. Then the documents. An adjudicator with hundreds of cases skims a story and reads a date table, so the draft opens with one.

Re: Claimant HOLL••, D., request for relief of charges

Dates.: Hired 14 June 2021. Final written warning 11 February 2025. Final incident 26 February 2025. Discharged 28 February 2025. Claim effective 16 March 2025.
The policy.: Attendance policy, handbook section 4.2, acknowledged by the claimant on 14 June 2021exhibit A
The warnings.: Written warning 8 January 2025exhibit B. Final written warning 11 February 2025, stating that a further unexcused absence would end employmentexhibit C
The final incident.: Unexcused absence 26 February 2025, recorded on the attendance logexhibit D. Discharge followed on 28 February.
The ground.: Discharge for wilful disregard of a known rule. Relief of charges is requested on that ground.

Dates first, not narrative

An adjudicator has hundreds of cases and a statutory standard. A response that opens with a story gets skimmed; one that opens with a date table gets read.

Every sentence traces to a document

A warning, a date, a policy or an incident is never invented. A sentence with no fact behind it is not written at all: the composer stops rather than produce a draft that cites nothing.

And it will tell you to concede

Where there is no misconduct, asserting one would be false, and a pattern of thin responses is what removes your relief on the claims you would have won.

You are the only person in this

Everything up to the draft runs on its own. Nothing is filed until you approve it, and any claim touching discrimination, retaliation, leave, workers’ compensation or whistleblowing is escalated to counsel and never filed on the merits.