Free tool, no signup, your file stays in your browser

Which downline debit balances did not close this cycle?

Somebody at your organisation answers that question every payout cycle, by hand, across every carrier and every agent tier. Run one cycle through this and see the agent-tier balances that do not cross-collateralise cleanly against carrier data.

Run one cycle Read the argument first

We know what we are asking for. Your statements are read and hashed on this page, we never see an agent name, and you can open the exact summary we receive before you decide whether we deserve the next one.

Sample FMO, one payout cycle: 11 downline agents, 4 carriers

8 agent-tier balances do not cross-collateralise cleanly.

Delta Field Group$2,605
debit on UnitedHealthcare, credit on Aetna Senior · split across carriers
K. Bhatt-$2,320
debit on UnitedHealthcare, credit on Aetna Senior · uncovered
R. Okafor$1,575
debit on Humana, credit on Mutual of Omaha · split across carriers
P. Moreau-$1,240
debit on Mutual of Omaha, credit on UnitedHealthcare · uncovered

$4,360 uncovered and $7,780 covered only by netting one carrier against another. Agent names never leave your browser.

The Override Reconciliation Benchmark

One payout cycle, every carrier, every downline agent. Paste the lines or drop in the export you already run, and the benchmark returns the agent-tier debit balances that do not cross-collateralise cleanly against carrier data.

Your statement file does not leave this browser, and you can check that before you run it.

The lines are read and the arithmetic is done on this page. Agent names are replaced by a short hash here, on your machine, before anything is sent. What we receive is a summary of carriers, tiers and totals, and you can open it and read it in full under your result before you decide to trust us with the next one.

Upload a CSV

One payout cycle, one line per carrier and agent

Carrier, agent, tier, the amount credited, any debit balance, and the period.

What the manual rebuild costs

Not the software. The software computes and displays the hierarchy, and the ones that do it do it well. What costs is the judgment on top: deciding which debit is covered by which credit, on which carrier, at which tier.

It is a salary line

A large distribution network published a Commissions Analyst posting whose own stated duties are Excel reports, agent-level debit balances and cross-collateralised obligations. That is our summary of the posting, not a quotation from it. An employer wrote it to hire someone, which makes it the most motivated description of this work we found anywhere.

It repeats every cycle

Not a project with an end. The same reconstruction, in the same spreadsheet, the next month, with the balances that did not close carried forward into it.

The answer lives in one head

Which balances net across carriers and which do not is a rule your organisation applies rather than a rule the statements state. When the person holding it is away, the cycle waits.

Honest about the evidence: this band is the thinnest part of our research, three direct accounts rather than the five we set as the bar, and we are running this test precisely because we are not sure. People complaining about commission software is also evidence that a lot of organisations use it and it works for them.

What the benchmark gives you

The count: how many agent-tier balances in this cycle do not cross-collateralise cleanly.
The two failure shapes told apart, because they are not the same conversation: a debit no credit covers anywhere, and a debit that closes only if you net one carrier against another.
The dollars under each, so the second one stops being a feeling about the process.
Which carrier each debit sits on and which carrier the offsetting credit sits on, agent by agent.
The per-carrier totals for the cycle, credited against carried as debit.

And what it does not give you

A resolution. It shows which balances do not close. Deciding what to do about each one is the judgment work, and that is the paid product rather than this.
A statement rebuild. Nothing here produces a finance-ready file or writes anything back to a carrier or an agent.
A verdict on your netting rules. If your organisation nets across carriers by policy, the split rows are correct and the tool has no way to know that. It labels them and stops.
A product. Analyst Autopilot is not built. This page exists to find out whether the problem is worth building for.

How Analyst Autopilot would work

01
The cycle arrives
The same carrier statements you already receive, across every downline tier, in whatever export you already run.
02
The override runs itself
The full computation across all downline tiers and carriers, every cycle, without one person rebuilding it.
03
Cross-collateralised balances resolve
Against your own netting rules, applied the same way every month rather than remembered.
04
Exceptions go to a human
The finance-ready rebuild comes out the other side, and only the cases that need a decision are put in front of somebody.

Steps 2 to 4 describe the product we would build, at $1,199 a month for the organisation. Today only step 1 and the benchmark on this page exist, and they are free.

Why we think this is the sharp thing

The thing we think is missing is not hierarchy software. It is the judgment layer on top of it: resolving cross-collateralised obligations across carriers, every cycle, which is why organisations that already run commission software still pay a person to do this.

So the comparison we are making is against a salaried Commissions Analyst, not against a software tier. $1,199 a month for the organisation is a fraction of a fully-loaded US analyst salary, and if you do not employ one, this proposition is probably not for you and we would rather say so on the page than in a call.

What we are NOT claiming. Comissio's Multi-level Hierarchy tier ($499 a month plus 1% of gross commission processed) computes and displays a downline hierarchy, and nothing in our research says its users are unhappy with what it does; our argument is about the judgment work it does not attempt. Core Commissions' Managed Services rung, at its 15-payee annual-commit floor, is $600 a month effective. Both of those are real products doing real work.

And two things we cannot tell you, which we would rather flag than fudge. Whether EZLynx or Applied Epic already close this inside their native commission modules is something we have not measured, so we will not tell you they do and we will not tell you they do not. And the cheapest thing in this category is not either of the tools above: AgentMIM publishes a $0 free tier and a $37 first rung.

What people said, in their own words

These are not our customers and not testimonials. One is a public review, quoted verbatim. The other two are OUR SUMMARIES of public sources, printed outside quotation marks on purpose, because we could not reproduce those two word for word and a tidied paraphrase inside quotation marks is a fabricated quotation.

“I tracked commissions manually with a spreadsheet for years. There was no check and balance and it was difficult to guarantee accuracy. ...”

Capterra review of Commission Tracker for Insurance, by an office manager in insurance, dated 2022-11-11Verbatim, and the ellipsis marks where we stopped quoting rather than an edit. Older than the three-year window our research counts, from an independent agency rather than an FMO, and Capterra is a venue where reviews are often invited. Printed anyway, with all four of those caveats.

An FMO principal says he cannot find a product built for carrier-override and agency-commission tracking, that every peer he asks is improvising differently, and that he is weighing building his own.

Our summary of a public thread on r/InsuranceAgent, 2026-02Not a quotation. Nobody invited or paid for that post, and it is the single strongest account we found of this problem from inside the band this page is written for.

A distribution network hiring a Commissions Analyst lists the job as Excel reports, agent-level debit balances and cross-collateralised obligations.

Our summary of a public job posting on builtin.comNot a quotation. An employer wrote it to hire someone rather than to answer anyone, and had a costly reason to describe the work accurately, which is why we weight it heavily despite it not being a complaint.

Who is behind this

Dario Verghi, working alone at LeanAI Studio. I have never run an FMO, never administered a downline and never reconciled a carrier statement, so I am not going to tell you I know your job.

What I do is run a small studio that tests one idea at a time in the open. I read public threads, reviews and job postings from people paying overrides across a downline, found the same reconstruction described from three different sides, and wrote down in advance what result would make me build this and what result would make me drop it. The bar was set before the first message went out and it is not moving now.

I also wrote down, before launching, that this band is the thinnest evidence in the research and that a page full of warm replies with nobody actually running a cycle would be a failure rather than a success. If this test fails I will say so here rather than quietly leaving the page up. Write to me at dario@leanaistudio.com.

Straight answers

Can I buy this today?: No. The product does not exist yet. The benchmark on this page is the whole of what is built, and the $1,199 a month is the price it would carry if it gets built.
What actually leaves my browser?: A summary: carrier names, tier labels, the period, per-agent totals with the agent name replaced by a short hash, and the counts the tool derived. No agent names, no policy numbers, no statement lines, no file. There is a button under your result that prints that summary in full, and it is the same object we receive.
Why do you need a whole downline rather than one agent?: Because cross-collateralisation is the whole question. A single agent on a single carrier always reconciles with itself. The balances that do not close are the ones where the debit is on one carrier and the credit is on another, and one agent cannot show you that.
Do I have to sign up?: No. There is no account and no email field in the way of the tool. If you want a copy of your result you can leave an address afterwards, and that is the only reason we would have one.
Is this cheaper than the commission software we already run?: Almost certainly not, and that is not the comparison. AgentMIM publishes a $0 free tier and a $37 first rung, well below anything here. This is priced against the salaried person doing the reconciliation on top of whatever software you run, so if nobody at your organisation does that, you are not who this is for.
Does EZLynx or Applied Epic already do this?: We do not know, and we are not going to guess in either direction on a public page. If your management system already resolves cross-collateralised debit balances across carriers, tell us and we will write that down.
What would you actually build first?: The cycle run and the exception queue: the full override computation every payout cycle, with only the balances that need a decision put in front of a person. Everything else waits, and if this test does not clear the bar, none of it gets built.