A replacement bank PDF differs: compare both issued versions

The desktop apps export date, description, and amount as CSV. Open CSV in Excel to save an XLSX workbook. Statement support varies: verify the result against your own PDF.

Working sequence

In Acrobat Pro, open All tools → Compare files and select the older and newer originals.
Choose settings appropriate to report/spreadsheet text or scanned-document image comparison. Use Compare text only only for an intentional text-only scope.
Run the comparison and inspect reported changes against both originals.
Retain the report with both revision IDs and an unresolved-difference list; decide corrections separately.

Identify the two sources before opening Compare

Record the original received date, the replacement’s provenance, stated coverage and any bank explanation. Give them separate revision identifiers rather than overwriting the earlier file. Do not accept “corrected” in a filename as proof of authenticity. If scope differs, describe it as a scope difference instead of a revised copy of the same statement.

In Acrobat Pro, use All tools → Compare files, select the older and newer files, then review the comparison settings. Adobe’s comparison documentation distinguishes report/spreadsheet text comparison from scanned-document image comparison. Select Compare text only only if you intentionally exclude graphic differences; it is not an exhaustive check of a scanned statement.

Retain a difference report, not just a changed total

Run the appropriate comparison and inspect its reported changes against both originals. Retain the report with old/new revision identifiers. A scanner artifact, shifted page, altered description and changed amount need different follow-up; a highlighted region does not establish the bank’s intended accounting correction.

Our separate synthetic text demonstration changes a receipt from 100 to 105 and a fee from −10 to −15. Both versions net to 90. Python’s difflib.unified_diff actually reports the two changed rows, and their SHA256 values differ. A net-only review misses the offsetting changes.

Teaching control	Observed result	What it cannot establish
Compare byte hashes	Different	Monetary meaning or authenticity
Compare net values	Both 90	Unchanged component rows
Compare invented text lines	Two altered amounts	Acrobat’s result on a real PDF

These are text-file controls, not an executed Acrobat comparison, bank-format test or permission to change accounting entries.

Close the review without losing the earlier evidence

List every relevant changed row or page, unresolved difference and affected reviewed output. Re-extraction can produce a new working CSV revision; compare it with its own source and do not carry forward the older output’s approval automatically. If a difference cannot be explained, ask for an authenticated clarification through the established bank channel.

Keep the bank’s version decision separate from the bookkeeper’s correction decision. The comparison report does not authorize deleting an original or updating the ledger. For source-file assembly and duplicate observations, use the existing overlap guide; a reissued statement is a version question before it is a transaction-deduplication question.

Synthetic review case. The values are teaching data, not a vendor export or an import file.

For a bank source available only as PDF, download LocalExtract. It processes one PDF locally into date,description,amount CSV; check the extracted rows against the issued statement before using them.

Documentation for the added task checked October 16, 2026.