What is Budget Scenario Planning (Base, Upside, Downside)?

Budget Scenario Planning (Base, Upside, Downside) is an ERP workflow guide for Budgeting, Planning & FP&A. It focuses on Scenario Planning / Budget Versions.

What should a finance team verify before implementation?

Given an approved annual budget version; when FP&A Manager clones it to create Downside scenario applying -15% revenue overlay and hiring freeze, and Upside scenario applying +20% revenue overlay; then each scenario independently recalculates full P&L, balance sheet impact, and cash flow; side-by-side comparison displays up to five scenarios with delta columns; (negative) when a scenario version attempts to modify the locked base budget then 409 with `error_code: budget_version_locked`.

Budget Scenario Planning (Base, Upside, Downside)

Scenario Planning / Budget Versions is where ERP discipline either begins or breaks.

Budget Scenario Planning (Base, Upside, Downside) looks operational from far away. In a real finance team, it is a chain of assertions: the right actor started the work, the required records existed, the control policy was applied, the state change was preserved, and the outcome can be explained later without rebuilding the transaction from emails and spreadsheets.

The expected business outcome is specific: Three fully modeled budget scenarios available to the board for strategic decision-making, each with a complete P&L, cash flow impact, and narrative rationale.

The control flow a finance team actually needs.

Workflow map for this ERP process, including exception handling and audit evidence.

Step 1

Allow Unlimited Named Scenario Versions...

Step 2

Scenario Overlays Be Expressible As...

Step 3

Side-By-Side Comparison Display Up To...

Step 4

Scenarios Share The Same Account...

Step 5

Scenario Versions Be Independently...

The ERP surface involved.

Module

Scenario Planning / Budget Versions

Actors

CFO, FP&A Manager, FP&A Analyst

Tier

Tier 2

Finance area

Budgeting, Planning & FP&A

Region lens

US and UK finance teams

Publication date

April 10, 2026

System must allow unlimited named scenario versions cloned from any other version; scenario overlays must be expressible as percentage adjustments or absolute overrides on individual accounts, account groups, or dimensions; side-by-side comparison must display up to five scenarios in a single table with delta columns between any two; scenarios must share the same account structure, calendar, and entity hierarchy as the base budget; scenario versions must be independently lockable; board-ready PDF export must include scenario comparison table with CFO commentary.

US and UK teams have different compliance hooks, but the same control problem.

US teams usually care about clean evidence for audit support, vendor records, payment controls, tax reporting, and management review. UK teams usually care about VAT-ready records, approval evidence, digital-record discipline, and traceable postings. The country-specific details differ, but the operating pattern is the same: the ERP needs controlled records, explicit ownership, defensible state changes, and evidence that survives beyond the person who completed the task.

The control matrix.

Control area	Requirement	Acceptance proof
Control 1	System must allow unlimited named scenario versions cloned from any other version	Given an approved annual budget version
Control 2	scenario overlays must be expressible as percentage adjustments or absolute overrides on individual accounts, account groups, or dimensions	when FP&A Manager clones it to create Downside scenario applying -15% revenue overlay and hiring freeze, and Upside scenario applying +20% revenue overlay
Control 3	side-by-side comparison must display up to five scenarios in a single table with delta columns between any two	then each scenario independently recalculates full P&L, balance sheet impact, and cash flow
Control 4	scenarios must share the same account structure, calendar, and entity hierarchy as the base budget	side-by-side comparison displays up to five scenarios with delta columns
Control 5	scenario versions must be independently lockable	`negative) when a scenario version attempts to modify the locked base budget then 409 with error_code: budget_version_locked.`
Control 6	board-ready PDF export must include scenario comparison table with CFO commentary.	Three fully modeled budget scenarios available to the board for strategic decision-making, each with a complete P&L, cash flow impact, and narrative rationale.

Audit evidence is a chain, not a folder.

Evidence layer	What should be preserved
Business event	FP&A Manager creates three budget scenarios - Base, Upside, and Downside - by cloning the approved annual budget and applying scenario-specific assumption overlays. For Downside, revenue is reduced by 15% and a hiring freeze is applied to headcount. For Upside, revenue is increased by 20% and strategic hires are added. Each scenario independently recalculates the full P&L, balance sheet impact, and cash flow. CFO reviews all three scenarios side by side in a comparison view, selecting lines to stress-test with custom percentages. CFO presents scenarios to the board with narrative commentary attached to each.
Control rules	System must allow unlimited named scenario versions cloned from any other version; scenario overlays must be expressible as percentage adjustments or absolute overrides on individual accounts, account groups, or dimensions; side-by-side comparison must display up to five scenarios in a single table with delta columns between any two; scenarios must share the same account structure, calendar, and entity hierarchy as the base budget; scenario versions must be independently lockable; board-ready PDF export must include scenario comparison table with CFO commentary.
Acceptance proof	`Given an approved annual budget version; when FP&A Manager clones it to create Downside scenario applying -15% revenue overlay and hiring freeze, and Upside scenario applying +20% revenue overlay; then each scenario independently recalculates full P&L, balance sheet impact, and cash flow; side-by-side comparison displays up to five scenarios with delta columns; (negative) when a scenario version attempts to modify the locked base budget then 409 with error_code: budget_version_locked.`
Data record	`budget_scenario { id: bs_, name: string, description: string, parent_version_id: string, status: enum(DRAFT/APPROVED/LOCKED/ARCHIVED), scenario_type: enum(BASE/UPSIDE/DOWNSIDE/CUSTOM), created_by: string, external_id: string }; scenario_overlay { id: so_, scenario_id: string, account_code: string, dimension: string, adjustment_type: enum(PERCENTAGE/ABSOLUTE), adjustment_value: numeric, external_id: string }; (reference, product may differ).`
System event	`POST /v1/budget-scenarios { name, parent_version_id, scenario_type, external_id } -> 201 { id, status: DRAFT }; POST /v1/budget-scenarios/{id}/overlays { account_code, adjustment_type, adjustment_value, external_id }; GET /v1/budget-scenarios/comparison?scenario_ids={ids} -> 200 { columns: [] }; emits scenario.approved event.`
Lifecycle state	`DRAFT -> APPROVED -> LOCKED; terminal ARCHIVED; guard: scenarios are independently lockable; base budget lock does not propagate to scenario versions; up to 5 scenarios comparable simultaneously.`

The useful version of this workflow is not only fast. It is inspectable. A controller, auditor, or operator should be able to move from source event to system record to state transition to final business outcome without guessing.

Implementation contracts.

Reference data model

`budget_scenario` { id: bs_*, name: string, description: string, parent_version_id: string, status: enum(DRAFT/APPROVED/LOCKED/ARCHIVED), scenario_type: enum(BASE/UPSIDE/DOWNSIDE/CUSTOM), created_by: string, external_id: string }; `scenario_overlay` { id: so_*, scenario_id: string, account_code: string, dimension: string, adjustment_type: enum(PERCENTAGE/ABSOLUTE), adjustment_value: numeric, external_id: string }; (reference, product may differ).

API and events

`POST /v1/budget-scenarios` { name, parent_version_id, scenario_type, external_id } -> 201 { id, status: DRAFT }; `POST /v1/budget-scenarios/{id}/overlays` { account_code, adjustment_type, adjustment_value, external_id }; `GET /v1/budget-scenarios/comparison?scenario_ids={ids}` -> 200 { columns: [] }; emits `scenario.approved` event.

State transitions

`DRAFT -> APPROVED -> LOCKED`; terminal `ARCHIVED`; guard: scenarios are independently lockable; base budget lock does not propagate to scenario versions; up to 5 scenarios comparable simultaneously.

Common implementation traps.

Treating the workflow as data entry

If the ERP only stores the final record, the team loses the decision trail that explains how the record became valid.

Hiding exception logic

Exceptions need owners, reason codes, and time stamps. A vague pending state is not a control.

Posting without recovery design

Retries, duplicate submissions, and partial failures must be explicit so the system does not create inconsistent records.

Skipping evidence design

A workflow that cannot produce evidence on demand will eventually push finance teams back into manual screenshots and spreadsheets.

Where Rivane fits.

Rivane is built for finance workflows where automation must stay tied to source documents, approvals, state transitions, ledger impact, reporting, and audit evidence. Use this guide as a checklist for evaluating whether an ERP workflow is merely digitized or actually controlled.

References and source basis.

These sources provide the standards, regulatory, or government context around the flow. They are included so the guide is useful to finance operators, auditors, and implementation teams, not only buyers reading software copy.

Back to ERP use cases