Financial services teams can run the COREP and FINREP reporting cycle in Jira: one Epic per cycle, one Task per template, and clear resubmission paths.
Jira won't replace your regulatory reporting software. It can't calculate capital ratios, generate XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) files, or submit COREP (Common Reporting) and FINREP (Financial Reporting) reports to regulators. That work stays with specialised tools like Axiom, Wolters Kluwer OneSumX, Regnology, or your core banking systems. What Jira does well is coordinate and document the human workflow behind these reports.
This guide walks you through the setup step by step: a six-step workflow with correction and resubmission paths, custom fields for regulatory data, and automation that creates each cycle and its Tasks on schedule. It also explains how SaaSJet's Workflow Intelligence framework adds structured checkpoints, deadline tracking, an audit trail, and cycle-time analysis.
What This Jira Setup Actually Gets You
- COREP (prudential data — capital, leverage, liquidity) and FINREP (financial/accounting data — balance sheet, P&L, asset quality) are two separate EU regulatory reporting regimes under CRR Art. 99, submitted every month (LCR) or quarter (core cycle), always in xBRL-CSV format since the 31 March 2026 reference date.
- Jira doesn't create the regulatory filing itself. Instead, it helps coordinate and document the workflow steps needed to produce it, such as data extraction, reconciliation, validation, sign-off, and submission.
- The recommended structure is one Jira Epic per reporting cycle (monthly LCR, quarterly COREP/FINREP, semi-annual/annual extended disclosures) and one Template Task per individual template inside it.
- A six-step workflow (TO DO, DATA EXTRACTION, RECONCILIATION, VALIDATION, SIGN-OFF, DONE) keeps two types of failure separate: Send Back for Correction, which is used when a problem is found before submission, and Reopen for Resubmission, which is used if a regulator rejects the report after submission. Keeping these paths separate makes the audit trail clear about what kind of issue occurred.
- Jira uses two layers of automation: one creates the Epic on a set schedule, and the other fills it with the necessary Template Tasks. This way, no one needs to remember to start a new reporting cycle manually.
- Even outside the EU, the underlying shape repeats under different names: UK PRA returns via BEEDS, US FFIEC Call Report / FR Y-9C, Australia's APRA ARS via D2A. Same standardised templates, fixed deadline, multi-system reconciliation, and a named accountable sign-off.
- This setup does not make an institution compliant. The actual XBRL generation, validation, and submission still need to be done with dedicated reporting software or core systems. What this setup does is make coordination faster, less likely to be missed, and easier to prove later.
Does Your EBA Supervisory Reporting Process Already Fit Jira?
If your organization already uses Jira and you help with COREP or FINREP submissions, you may wonder if your team's current process fits well with Jira's workflow or if it creates challenges. This article aims to help you answer that question and shows how you can use Jira to make coordination faster and reduce errors.
Important note: we are not lawyers, and nothing in this article is legal advice. The tool recommendations come from our experience working with Jira and from feedback from real SaaSJet clients. The regulation defines what needs to be done; the choice of tool to do it with remains yours.
What Are COREP and FINREP and Why Do They Share a Deadline?
We begin with a brief explanation of some terms.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) oversees several duties, including supervisory reporting such as COREP and FINREP.
COREP (Common Reporting) is the standardised set of templates EU banks use to report prudential data to their supervisor: capital adequacy, risk-weighted assets, leverage, large exposures, and liquidity.
FINREP (Financial Reporting) is the parallel set of templates for financial/accounting data: balance sheet, profit & loss, and asset quality. Together, COREP and FINREP let a supervisor check both whether a bank holds enough capital and liquidity, and what its actual financial position looks like, in a format that can be aggregated and compared across the whole sector.
Their legal basis is the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR, Regulation (EU) 575/2013), Art. 99 — the reporting obligation itself — with the actual templates and data points set by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117, the current Implementing Technical Standards (ITS, the detailed technical rules that specify exactly what a regulation requires in practice) on supervisory reporting. This recast repealed the earlier Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451 — worth knowing if you see the old number elsewhere. In the euro area, ECB Regulation (EU) 2015/534 extends FINREP to both Significant Institutions (SIs, supervised directly by the ECB) and Less Significant Institutions (LSIs, supervised by the National Competent Authority, or NCA — the local regulator). The submission format is xBRL-CSV (a structured, machine-readable reporting format), mandatory since the 31 March 2026 reference date.
Why they share a deadline isn't a scheduling coincidence: several figures have to reconcile between the two, because the same loans and securities feed both a capital calculation (COREP) and a balance sheet line (FINREP). A mismatch between them is exactly the kind of thing a supervisor's data-quality check catches first — which is why, later in this article, we keep both inside a single Jira Epic rather than splitting them.
Even if you're not in the EU, this is still useful. COREP and FINREP are the EU's implementation of a broader pattern that shows up under different names almost everywhere prudentially regulated banks operate: the UK has its own PRA returns submitted through the BEEDS portal, the US has the FFIEC Call Report (and the FR Y-9C for bank holding companies), Australia has APRA's ARS returns submitted via D2A. Template names, remittance dates, and legal citations differ, but the underlying shape is the same: standardised templates, a fixed periodic deadline, data pulled from multiple internal systems and reconciled before submission, and a named person accountable for signing off before anything goes to the regulator. The Jira setup described here follows that general shape — if your local regime uses a 30-day window instead of COREP/FINREP's ~42 days, or different template names, you'd adjust the field options and dates, not the structure.
How Jira Can Make the Supervisory Reporting Cycle Easier
It is very important to be clear about what Jira actually does before starting the setup.
What Jira never does: calculate a capital ratio, generate the xBRL file, validate it against the EBA's data point model, or submit it to the NCA's portal. That work runs through dedicated regulatory reporting software (Axiom, Wolters Kluwer OneSumX, Regnology, or similar) or your core banking/finance systems — outside Jira, regardless of anything in this article.
What Jira can do is coordinate and document the human workflow for producing the report. It tracks who pulled data from which system, whether reconciliation happened and who confirmed it, who signed off before the data went to the reporting software, if it was done before the deadline, and whether there is a record of all these steps. This is the main focus of the rest of this guide.
To describe that coordination, we use standard Jira building blocks:
- A Jira Epic — a Jira issue type that groups related work items under one shared deadline. We use one Epic per reporting cycle (e.g. "Q1 2027 COREP/FINREP").
- A Jira Task (Template Task) — one Jira work item per individual template (Own Funds, FINREP Balance Sheet, and so on) inside that Epic, carrying its own data source, reconciliation record, sign-off, and deadline.
The steps below are just one practical way to set this up in Jira. They are not meant to assume how your bank currently manages the process.
Setting Up Jira for COREP and FINREP Coordination
The Reporting Cycle Epic
We use the approach where one Epic represents one reporting cycle for one period, for example, "Q1 2027 COREP/FINREP" or "March 2027 LCR." Because different template families run on different clocks, so we recommend three separate Epic patterns:
Epic pattern | Templates inside it | Due |
|---|
Monthly: Liquidity (LCR) | COREP liquidity templates | 15th calendar day after the reference date (Art. 3(1)(a), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117) |
Quarterly: COREP + FINREP core cycle | Own funds, leverage ratio, large exposures, NSFR (COREP) + balance sheet, P&L, asset quality (FINREP) | ~42 calendar days after quarter-end: 12 May / 11 August / 11 November / 11 February |
Semi-annual and Annual | Simplified sets for Small and Non-Complex Institutions (SNCIs — smaller banks that qualify for reduced reporting under CRR's proportionality rules), other annual-only disclosures | Per the NCA's published reporting calendar |
Since all three patterns create the same Jira issue type, which is a native Epic, there is no way to tell which pattern an Epic belongs to just by looking at it. We suggest adding a custom field to make this clear.
Custom Field | Type | What It's For |
|---|
Cycle Type | Select: Quarterly / Monthly LCR / Semi-Annual/Annual | Identifies which Epic pattern this instance is. The automation rules described below read this field to decide which Tasks to create |
Each Epic-creation rule sets the Cycle Type clearly when it is created. This is more reliable than matching patterns in the Epic's Summary, because if you rename the Epic later, text matching can fail without warning. Using a dedicated field avoids this problem.
The quarterly Epic deliberately bundles COREP and FINREP together; several figures have to reconcile between the two, and that cross-check is the highest-risk step in the whole cycle. Keeping both in one Epic keeps that reconciliation visible instead of split across two places that can drift out of sync.
Here's a real example of why cadence should be part of the Epic pattern. The EBA is currently consulting on a “Simplification Package” for supervisory reporting (EBA/CP/2026/07, published 10 April 2026, consultation closed 10 July 2026). In the current draft, the leverage disclosure template C 44.00 would move from quarterly to annual, one LCR template for SNCIs would be discontinued, and the ALMM template (C 71.00, concentration of counterbalancing capacity) for SNCIs would also be discontinued. The first reporting under these new rules is not expected before the 30 September 2027 reference date, so nothing changes yet. This setup is designed to handle such changes easily: when a template's frequency changes, only the schedule for that Epic pattern needs to be updated, not the entire process.
Custom Jira Workflow for the Template Task
In our example, each Template Task follows a template through its process, starting with pulling data and ending when it is confirmed as ready for your reporting software. There are six statuses in this workflow:
TO DO → DATA EXTRACTION → RECONCILIATION → VALIDATION → SIGN-OFF → DONE
↑______________| |
(Send Back for Correction) |
↑______________________________|
(Reopen for Resubmission)
- TO DO: the Template Task exists, but work hasn't started.
- DATA EXTRACTION: data is being pulled from the relevant source system(s) (general ledger, credit risk, treasury, trading) for this template.
- RECONCILIATION: the pulled figures are checked against the prior period and, for the quarterly Epic, against the counterpart COREP or FINREP template. This status exists specifically because "reconciliation happened" needs to be a visible and timed step.
- VALIDATION: technical validation against the reporting software's rules. If the check fails for a reason that traces back to the underlying figures, the Task moves back to RECONCILIATION via a Send Back for Correction transition, rather than being corrected silently while the Task still sits in VALIDATION.
- SIGN-OFF: a named, authorized reviewer confirms the template is ready to hand off to the reporting software for xBRL generation and submission. If the reviewer finds a problem here, the same Send Back for Correction transition sends the Task back to VALIDATION.
- DONE: the template has been submitted (through your reporting software, to the NCA portal) and confirmed as received.
If the NCA rejects a submission and you need to resubmit, the Task moves from DONE back to RECONCILIATION through a Reopen for Resubmission transition. This means a full re-check is needed, not just a re-validation, because a regulator rejection usually requires reviewing the underlying data as well as the validation step.
Custom Fields for the Template Task
Custom fields are what make a status like RECONCILIATION or SIGN-OFF mean something specific, rather than just showing that a card moved on a board.
Custom Field | Type | What It's For |
|---|
Template ID | Select | The actual regulatory template this Task produces evidence for (e.g. "COREP C 01.00 — Own Funds," "FINREP F 02.00 — P&L") |
Reference Date | Date | The reporting period this Task covers (e.g. 30 June 2027) |
Data Source System(s) | Multi-select | General Ledger / Credit Risk / Treasury / Trading / Other — makes the data lineage for this template explicit rather than implicit |
Reconciliation Status | Select | Not Started / Matched / Variance Found / Resolved — evidences that reconciliation is a real, tracked control, not an assumption |
Reconciled Against | Select | For the quarterly Epic: which counterpart template (COREP ↔ FINREP) this one was cross-checked against |
Template Owner | User picker | The person accountable for this template — set once, independent of Assignee |
QA Reviewer | User picker | Same — a fixed, documented role |
Final Approver | User picker | Same — the person authorized to move the Task to SIGN-OFF |
NCA Feedback | Text | Holds the reason a submission was rejected. It is useful for dashboards or filtered views that show what's currently stuck and why. Issue History for Jira then keeps every previous value, with its own timestamp and author. |
Jira's native Due date field covers deadlines that every standard Jira view, filter, and SLA app can already read.
Template Owner, QA Reviewer, and Final Approver are separate fields from Assignee for a reason. Jira's Assignee field shows who is working on the Task at each stage, and it changes as the Task moves from DATA EXTRACTION to RECONCILIATION to SIGN-OFF. This is helpful for daily work, but it doesn't provide a lasting record of who is authorized for each role throughout the cycle. A Role field, set once and separate from Assignee, makes it clear and exportable who is responsible for each role, instead of relying on team knowledge.
Step-by-Step: Building COREP and FINREP Reporting Cycle in Jira
Creating the COREP and FINREP Reporting Space
Go to the Spaces menu and click "+" to create a new Space. Choose a company-managed Space — only company-managed Spaces support fully custom workflows, work item types, and field configurations you can later reuse across other compliance Spaces.
Jira Work item types
The COREP/FINREP Reporting Space needs two types of work item:
- Epic for the Reporting Cycle — Jira's standard, built-in type, already available in every Space; represents one period's reporting cycle (monthly LCR, quarterly COREP/FINREP, or semi-annual/annual extended disclosures).
- Task for tracking one regulatory template's internal lifecycle, from data extraction through sign-off.
Building the custom Jira workflow
The Template Task needs a custom workflow, while the Epic stays on Jira's default To Do → In Progress → Done flow. Go to Settings → Work items → Workflows → Add workflow → Create new, name it (e.g. "Template Task Workflow"), and build the six statuses above, including both the Send Back for Correction and Reopen for Resubmission transitions. Then map it to the Task type in Space settings and publish changes.
Adding custom fields
Go to Admin Settings → Work items → Fields → Create a new field, and add each field from the table above, plus the Cycle Type field on the Epic. Map every field to the relevant Screen — a field that isn't mapped to a Screen won't appear on the Task.
Setting up automation
This is what generates a fresh Reporting Cycle Epic — with its Template Tasks already inside it — without anyone remembering to do it manually. The automation runs in two layers: one creates the Epic on a schedule, the other populates it with the right Tasks once it exists.
Layer 1: creating the Epic. Jira Automation's Scheduled trigger includes a Basic tab with a recurrence picker — start date, how often it repeats, options like "on the last day of the month," and an end condition. Create three separate rules, one per Epic pattern:
Cycle Type | Occurrence | Start date | Summary | Due date |
|---|
Monthly LCR | Every 1 month, on the last day of the month | Any month-end | LCR {{now.format("MMMM yyyy")}} | {{now.plusDays(15)}} — the rule fires on the reference date (month-end), so adding 15 calendar days lands on the actual remittance deadline per Art. 3(1)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 |
Quarterly | Every 3 months, on the last day of the month | A quarter-end date (e.g. 30 September) | {{now.format("QQQ")}} {{now.format("yyyy")}} COREP/FINREP | {{now.plusDays(42)}} — this matches the actual remittance dates exactly (12 May / 11 August / 11 November / 11 February are each precisely 42 calendar days after their quarter-end) |
Semi-Annual/Annual | Every 12 months | Your reporting year-end | Annual {{now.format("yyyy")}} COREP/FINREP | No reliable fixed-offset formula — this pattern's deadline follows your NCA's own published calendar, so set it manually or pull it from that calendar |
The choice of start date matters as much as the interval: for the quarterly rule it must itself be a quarter-end date, or "every 3 months" will drift away from actual quarter-ends after the first cycle. Each rule's Create work item action also sets Cycle Type to match the pattern it handles — that's the field the next layer reads.
Layer 2: filling in the Tasks. Set up a separate rule per Cycle Type:
- Trigger: When a work item is created
- Condition: issue type is Epic
- Condition: Cycle Type matches the pattern for this rule
- Actions: for each template, create a work item (Task) — Parent set to the triggering Epic, Template ID and Reference Date filled in, Due date copied from the Epic
This is a starting structure, not a full replacement for your own reporting calendar — supervisory reporting changes, and template sets differ by jurisdiction and institution type. Check what your own NCA requires and adjust.
Quarterly → 7 Tasks:
Task | Family | Template ID |
|---|
Own Funds | COREP | C 01.00 — Own Funds |
Leverage Ratio | COREP | C 44.00 (LR5) |
Large Exposures | COREP | Confirm against your own reporting calendar |
NSFR | COREP | Confirm against your own reporting calendar |
FINREP Balance Sheet | FINREP | F 01.01–01.03 |
FINREP P&L | FINREP | F 02.00 |
Asset Quality | FINREP | Confirm against your own reporting calendar |
For each Task, set Reconciled Against so every COREP template links to its FINREP counterpart and vice versa — that pairing is the cross-check the quarterly Epic is meant to keep visible.
Monthly LCR → 5 Tasks:
Task | Template ID | Covers |
|---|
Liquid Assets | C 72.00 | Composition and valuation of qualifying high-quality liquid assets |
Outflows | C 73.00 | Expected cash outflows over the 30-day stress period |
Inflows | C 74.00 | Expected cash inflows over the same period |
Collateral Swaps | C 75.01 | Collateral swap transactions between counterparties |
Liquidity Coverage Calculation | C 76.00 | Adjusted liquid assets after collateral swaps and haircuts |
Semi-Annual or Annual: not standardized — the Task set depends on whether your institution is an SNCI and which annual-only disclosures apply. Define this pattern's Tasks against your own reporting calendar.
Everything in this section runs on native Jira: two work item types (Epic and Task), one workflow with both a pre-submission correction path and a post-submission recovery path, a set of custom fields that carry the regulatory data, and scheduled automation that opens each cycle on time. From there, SaaSJet apps carry the process the rest of the way.
Taking Your COREP and FINREP Setup Further with SaaSJet
The four Jira apps below work as one Workflow Intelligence cycle. Smart Forms automates the checkpoints inside the Task lifecycle itself. SLA Time and Report monitors whether deadlines are actually being met. Issue History gives you the audit trail once something is submitted. Time in Status gives you the diagnostics of where the cycle actually loses time.
Structuring and Automating the Task Lifecycle with Smart Forms for Jira
A Template Task's record is more useful when it's captured at the moment each stage actually happens. Smart Forms for Jira can be used as structured checkpoints attached to the same Task throughout its lifecycle.
The Data Extraction Form is filled out when data is pulled. It records which source system was used, who pulled the data, and the timestamp. This ensures that the "Data Source System(s)" is a verified fact, not just something added from memory during sign-off.
The Reconciliation Checklist Form is completed when the RECONCILIATION status is being worked on. It updates the Reconciliation Status and Reconciled Against fields automatically. If a variance is found, a rationale must be provided.
The Sign-Off Form is completed by the Final Approver to confirm the template is ready to be handed off to the reporting software. A Jira workflow condition can limit who is allowed to complete the SIGN-OFF step. Smart Forms adds another layer of control: with form-level access settings, only the Final Approver can edit the form or view all submitted responses for the cycle. Everyone else can see only their own submissions.
Selected form answers map straight to the Jira fields described above. That's what makes the automation itself work, not just the data capture. Take the Reconciliation Checklist Form: submitting it updates Reconciliation Status and Reconciled Against directly, and if Reconciliation Status comes out as Matched or Resolved, that same submission can automatically move the Task to VALIDATION, so no one has to open the Task and change the status by hand.
Tracking Remittance Dates with SLA Time and Report for Jira
Setting up the Epic and Task structure is only part of the process for a financial entity. The next step is to track each template's deadline separately, instead of combining them into one overall reporting due date that can hide which templates are actually at risk. Here are the SLA Time and Report for Jira helps.
SLA Goal | Limit | Start | Note |
|---|
Quarterly template family (Own Funds, Leverage, Large Exposures, NSFR, FINREP core) | 42 calendar days | Template Task created | One SLA per template family, so a dashboard shows time-to-deadline per template |
Monthly LCR | 15 calendar days | Template Task created | A separate SLA, independent of the quarterly clock |
Resubmission buffer | Whatever remains before the original Due date | Reopen for Resubmission transition | The regulatory deadline doesn't move because of a rejection — this SLA makes visible how much runway is actually left |
Because the Epic-creation automation already computes and stores a Due date on the Epic, you don't have to recalculate that deadline a second time: SLA Time and Report's Negotiated date can point the SLA goal directly at that Due date field, instead of the usual Time-limit-based (Start + Limit) setup.
Pre-breach alerts arrive as a comment on the Task itself, so the Template Owner and QA Reviewer see the countdown tightening before the deadline hits, and breach notifications can route to a team Slack channel so a missed internal checkpoint surfaces immediately.
What proving the deadline was met actually needs:
What's needed | The feature that produces it |
|---|
A per-template, per-period record of whether each SLA goal was met or breached | The SLA Grid shows every SLA goal for every Template Task, selectable by Space, SLA configuration, saved filter, or label, with columns you choose on export |
A pattern across periods: is a particular template family chronically late, or was one quarter unusual? | Met vs Exceeded per Criteria, broken down by Template ID, Assignee, or any other field on the Task |
A compliance archive that builds itself rather than depending on someone remembering to pull a report before an examination | Report Scheduler sends SLA reports by email on a set schedule, based on a saved View. Each email includes a download link to the latest report, plus on-demand export as XLSX or CSV |
If you use Time-limit-based instead of Negotiated date | Set the working calendar to count every calendar day. COREPand FINREP deadlines are calendar-day, not business-day, and a default business-hours calendar will compute the wrong date entirely |
Building Audit-Ready Evidence with Issue History for Jira
Once a template is submitted, the question changes from "will we make it" to "show me exactly what happened, who confirmed the reconciliation, and whether the same variance keeps recurring." Issue History for Jira turns Jira's own change history into something searchable and exportable across every Template Task this period, not one ticket at a time.
What's needed | The feature that produces it |
|---|
A record that survives the reporting cycle: what was entered, when, and by whom, as the Task moved through its stages | Complete work-item history — every field change with its old and new value, every status transition, logged as its own event |
Proof that the person who confirmed reconciliation or signed off was actually authorized to | Every change is attributed: who, when, what changed — including changes made by an automation rule, and changes to Template Owner, QA Reviewer, or Final Approver specifically |
Reading across a whole reporting cycle, not one template at a time — is a variance recurring across quarters, does one template family reopen more than others | Cross-issue reporting: define the population by reporting period, Template ID, or Reconciliation Status, then read the full change history in one table |
Evidence a supervisor can review without logging into Jira | Export the filtered report to XLSX or CSV, or share it directly by email or a copyable link |
Jira work items can sometimes include more than just template numbers. For example, someone might leave a comment about a specific counterparty, which could introduce data that does not belong in a regulatory-reporting ticket. Issue History for Jira scans for PII and other sensitive data, so the same audit trail that shows the template lifecycle was followed can also highlight data that should not be there.
Finding Where the Cycle Loses Time with Time in Status
Time in Status shows where work is actually waiting during the roughly 42-day cycle and explains why. This is helpful because the short timeline means that if any stage takes longer than expected, it can be missed until the deadline is near.
What's actually happening | The feature that shows it | Why it matters here |
|---|
A stage has no fixed regulatory sub-deadline, but stalls anyway | Average Time across DATA EXTRACTION, RECONCILIATION, and VALIDATION, comparable by Template ID or assignee | Surfaces which stage of the cycle is structurally slow, not just that the overall deadline is close |
A template keeps getting reopened after submission | Status Count shows how many times a Task re-entered VALIDATION or RECONCILIATION via Send Back for Correction or Reopen for Resubmission | A rework signal across a whole reporting period at a glance — and distinguishes internal rework from post-submission rejections |
A report needs to be readable by someone outside the reporting team | Status Groups merge DATA EXTRACTION/RECONCILIATION/VALIDATION into a single "In Preparation" line for clean cycle-time figures; the dashboard gadget puts the same numbers in front of leadership for standing oversight | Turns six internal statuses into a view an auditor or manager can read without a walkthrough of the workflow itself |
The compressed 42-day window needs a full timeline after the fact | Time in Status per Date and Status Entrance Date give exact durations and entry dates per stage, for one Template Task | Shows exactly what happened and when for a specific task. This provides the level of detail an examiner needs for a single rejected or delayed submission. |
Make Jira Coordinate the Work, Not Just Track It
COREP and FINREP do not require new software. What matters is that a bank can show data was reconciled, a named person signed off, deadlines were met, and evidence is available when needed. With the setup described here, Jira manages this coordination from start to finish: using a Reporting Cycle Epic and Template Task structure, a workflow with both pre-submission correction and post-submission resubmission paths, custom fields for regulatory data, and automation to start each cycle on time. The four applications discussed here help make the process faster and easier to verify.
- Smart Forms for Jira turns data extraction, reconciliation, and sign-off into structured checkpoints instead of free-text updates.
- SLA Time and Report for Jira tracks each template family's remittance date on its own clock, so nobody has to hold every deadline in their head during quarter-end.
- Issue History for Jira builds the audit trail as a side effect of the same fields and forms already doing the reconciliation and sign-off work.
- Time in Status turns the compressed 42-day window into a method for finding where the process structurally loses time, before that turns into a missed deadline.
This alone doesn't make an institution compliant — that remains a decision for your own regulatory reporting and compliance teams, and the actual XBRL generation and submission still runs through your dedicated reporting software or core systems. What this setup does is take the coordination work your team is already doing somewhere — in Jira, in spreadsheets, in email — and make it faster to run, harder to lose track of, and easier to prove after the fact.
When your current COREP and FINREP process still depends on someone remembering which template is due next, that's usually a sign it belongs in a workflow instead.
Preparing for DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) incident reporting? See How to Set Up Jira for DORA Compliance: ICT Incident Reporting and Audit Trails.
