Hi
The short version of my last post is that I don't like building accounting systems where there are no clearly defined right numbers that are supposed to come out of it.
There is always a "right answer" in accounting - you just need to consult the big book of instructions and do what it says. "Right" is in the eye of the beholder here
Once we get off the basic GAAP (FASB/IASB common ground and accepted processes),*
Your assertion is that we are straying off GAAP standards here? I don't think this is shown to be true - and possible some of the use cases can be solved by introducing additional workflow steps anyway so that we aren't even needing to consult GAAP?
The solution is to stop thinking "I want to repost invoices" for example, and shift this to "I want an easy way to correct a mistake in an invoice." The first statement will get us nowhere really fast, but the second one is productive and we can do what is necessary to meet that need.
But from a COGS point of view you have exactly the same problem in both cases
Also I don't think anyway has a problem with a correction procedure as long as it can also be "hidden" for normal workflows so that it doesn't get in the way of normal use of the system. The complaint was that for smaller businesses, baring the reproducing the original invoice case (which has to be there) then it's normally not necessary to see these reversals cluttering up the system (so some views will have to have a "with reversals" flag)
However, I still think that most of the use cases can be solved without even needing an invoice reversal system. BUT such a system would be ace to have for the more difficult cases
Ed W