Turn AccuWage Findings into a Repair Checklist

Before recording individual findings, capture the test date, file name, byte size, generation version, intended tax year and selected submission type. Use the regular W-2 test for an original EFW2 file. Keep the complete report in restricted storage because it can contain employee information.

The AccuWage help guide explains that a critical issue stops testing. Record whether the whole file was examined, not just how many issues appeared. A short report from a stopped test does not demonstrate that later employer records are clean. Save the result before leaving the session so each repair can be tied to the file that produced it.

Create one workbook row per distinct finding and affected record, with a separate grouping key for repeated causes. Preserve the actual issue level, reference field, user entry and description shown by AccuWage. Put an internal summary in another column rather than replacing the official wording.

Add generated record number, record type, internal employee or employer key, source export row, mapping rule, proposed repair and retest reference. The source row and generated record number may differ because RA, RE and total records also occupy positions in the file. Keep full SSNs out of broadly shared issue lists. Authorized reviewers can follow the internal key to the restricted source when necessary.

AccuWage describes issue levels including Critical, Error, Alert and Informational. Preserve the level actually returned. A critical structural fault can prevent later checks from running, so repair that fault and rerun before estimating the remaining work. Filtering a category off the screen does not remove its issues from the file.

Read the complete message and compare it with the relevant field in the 2026 EFW2 specification. A malformed employer record can produce many downstream symptoms. Group findings by root cause, but retain every affected record until the repaired output confirms coverage. Do not claim that every warning is harmless or invent an error code for a problem described only in prose.

Consider a fictional export where a payroll integration inserts a tab into a delivery address and a separate mapping drops a withholding amount. The following descriptions are internal examples, not copied SSA messages or error codes. In actual use, retain the real test report alongside this repair analysis.

Fixing the generator prevents the same defect from returning on the next export. A manual text edit may be useful for diagnosis, but it should not become an undocumented production transformation.

Give the regenerated file a new version. Confirm the previously affected field now contains the approved value. Then repeat the full test and compare report completion, issue counts, employee population and employer totals with the previous run. A change that removes one error can alter field length or introduce a new total mismatch.

For a widespread mapping repair, check representative employees from every affected payroll source, plus a control employee who should remain unchanged. Recompute monetary totals independently of the formatted total records. Mark a finding resolved only when its repair evidence and the new test result agree. Keep deliberately accepted informational findings distinct from repaired errors and explain the actual decision.

AccuWage testing is separate from uploading and submitting the wage file. SSA also states that AccuWage identifies many, but not all, errors and does not verify employee names and SSNs. A clean result therefore closes a format-testing step, not the entire payroll reporting process.

Release the exact tested version with the reconciliation and remaining decision notes. Record which person has responsibility for submission and subsequent status review. If the file changes after release, invalidate the old test association and create a new run. Keep the workbook small enough to use during an incident: one row should answer what failed, what changed, and where the new evidence lives.