Methodology

What the index measures

The Reporting Control Maturity Index is a self-assessed, equal-weight index. Each of the ten domains is worth 10 points: 10 if the control is systematic and tooled, 4 if it is performed but manual or partial, 0 if it is not performed systematically. “I don’t know” scores 0, like the weakest answer, and is counted separately. The diagnostic score is the sum of the ten controls, out of 100: no weighting, no rescaling.

“Partial” is worth 4, not 5: a deliberate methodological choice, not a value taken from any text.

Bands

80–100 — Controls largely in place
50–79 — Controls partly in place
0–49 — Widespread control gaps indicated

Domains

General ledger ↔ regulatory reconciliation
Core-banking extraction integrity
End-user computing (EUC) dependency
Data lineage
Prudential mapping governance
Collateral and credit risk mitigation
Semantic and cross-table validation
FX conversion and multi-currency lineage
Suspense and transit accounts
Pre-submission dry run and sign-off

Scope by context

UMOA: data integrity of returns — financial statements submitted via the CRAEF platform (BCEAO Notice 002-03-2026), FODEP (Instruction 005-08-2017) and periodic statements (Instruction 003-05-2017). ICT operational resilience is not covered.

European Union: COREP / FINREP submissions. Where an ECB supervisory expectation is cited, it is presented as such, never as a requirement.

Nature of statements

Each statement under “Basis of this checkpoint” states its nature. A regulatory requirement or control objective is shown only with the official text it rests on; our own criteria are labelled as ours.

No source has been verified by a reviewer yet, so only our own criteria and judgments are shown.

Regulatory requirement
Control objective / supervisory expectation
Our methodology
Professional judgment
To be verified

Comparability across institutions

The index measures self-assessed maturity across the ten checkpoints for a given institution. Institutions differ in size, business model and operational complexity, so the same score does not carry the same weight everywhere, and it is not a standardised inter-bank benchmark.

Methodology review and feedback

This assessment framework is open to critical review by practitioners (CFOs, CROs, CIOs, regulatory reporting managers). If you contest a diagnostic criterion, the wording of a checkpoint or the interpretation of a reference text, write to us at tech@fondid.com. The Sources page lists the texts consulted, with their issuer and verification status.

What the index is not

A self-assessed index, calculated solely from your answers, which are not verified. It does not measure regulatory compliance or the probability of a supervisory finding or penalty, and it is not a supervisory rating, a certification or an approval by any authority. The scoring method (equal weights, 10/4/0 scale, band thresholds) is internal methodology.

Versions

UMOA questionnaire 0.3.1, EU questionnaire 0.3.1, scoring engine engine@2.0.0. The questions are a draft, pending review by subject-matter specialists. Each saved diagnostic keeps the exact version of its questions and answers; later updates do not change it.