Commitment Not the same between Job Cost & Purchasing Ledger

[KKJ70]

Okay, here's a break down of the quandry I am in.

1. Purchase order entered 9/15, charged to job cost account. (status 220/230)
2. Before approval, unit cost was revised on 9/20. (status 230/230)
3. The purchasing ledger shows the correct extended amount, $92.50 .
4. Project Commitments shows a completely different number, $4651.64 .
5. In F0902, the larger number shows for the PA ledger in September.
6. Both screens show the exact same time stamp.

Any ideas on how this happened?
How can I fix it?
Help! Trying to get PO approved.

 

[KKJ70]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, here's a break down of the quandry I am in.

1. Purchase order entered 9/15, charged to job cost account. (status 220/230)
2. Before approval, unit cost was revised on 9/20. (status 230/230)
3. The purchasing ledger shows the correct extended amount, $92.50 .
4. Project Commitments shows a completely different number, $4651.64 .
5. In F0902, the larger number shows for the PA ledger in September.
6. Both screens show the exact same time stamp.

Any ideas on how this happened?
How can I fix it?
Help! Trying to get PO approved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Update:
In PY, I cancelled the entire order and what I expected to happen did. The value removed from the PA ledger was only $92.50. I am still left with over $4k that was never on a PO.

If I remove this transaction from the F43199 table via SQL, I would also need to revise the F0902, correct? Where else? Consequences?

 

[bruces5]

Hope this isn't too late for you.

We have had similar problems and found some info on the JDE solution docs 200782304 & 200782312. Basically delete the Open Commitment entries (OLLT=PA) in the F43199 for the problematic PO. You can rebuild the F43199 records using R00993 (probably not needed in a total cancel). Then Repost to the PA ledger using R00932.

Note that the repost will not fix the F0902 if there are no F43199s left, so a SQL update to the F0902 may still be required.

Regards,

Bruce