NF-e receiving
Import the purchase invoice's XML: Tenka reads the items and amounts (a namespace-tolerant parser), you check it against the order and POST it — stock comes in (RECEIPT/PURCHASE per item, updating the average cost) and the payable is created. Recipient acknowledgment (SEFAZ) is gated (A1 certificat…
What you find on this screen
A portrait of the screen, read from the screen itself — it changes when the screen changes.
Available actions
Re-run
The list shows
WhenDecisionBecame an FCA?
Form fields
DecisãoA decisão como foi registrada no conselho. É o texto que o replay recoloca no contexto da época.
EncaminhamentoSe a decisão ficou como registro ou virou plano de ação com dono e prazo.
ResponsávelQuem ficou de fazer. Decisão sem responsável não é acompanhada por ninguém.
PrazoAté quando a decisão tem de estar cumprida.
Start here
O que esta tela responde
A Board decision re-run with two sets of numbers: what could be seen on that day, and what is known today.
What this screen is
BACKTESTING applied to HUMAN JUDGMENT: for a decision recorded in the Tenka Board, it rebuilds THE SCENARIO THAT EXISTED THEN (the agenda snapshot frozen in the minutes plus the indicator's actual value for the period) and compares it with what is known TODAY (the status of the FCA the decision opened and the indicator's most recent actual value). 🔴 The reading is always descriptive — "the scenario back then showed X; the outcome was Y" —, it measures the decision against what was known, and NEVER judges the person who decided. Pure record decisions (without an FCA) have no outcome to measure, and the screen says so plainly.
How to
What this screen answers
It is almost never the reasoning that was wrong: it is that a piece of data existed somewhere and did not reach the table. That is the actionable finding — change where the information comes from, not who decides.
Rules
A tela descreve o desfecho; não julga quem decidiu
A good decision with the information of the time may have gone wrong, and a lucky decision may have gone right. The value of the replay is to separate the two — and the useful reading is "what information was missing?", not "whose fault was it?".
Frequently asked questions
Which question this screen answers
Whether that month's decision, with what was known THEN, matched what happened afterward. For a decision recorded in the Board, the screen rebuilds the scenario of the time (the agenda snapshot frozen in the minutes plus the indicator's actual value for the period) and compares it with today: the status of the FCA the decision opened and the most recent actual value. The reading is always descriptive — it measures the decision, never judges the person. A pure record decision, without an FCA, has no outcome to measure, and the screen says so plainly.
Was this article helpful?
In the same module: The company over time5
Extension revenue shareThe apportionment of third-party extension revenue by PAID USAGE: for each extension (and its developer), per…Purchase ordersThe commitment made with the winning supplier: items, quantities, amounts, and lead time. The NF-e receipt ma…Asset custodyAsset tagging and custody for fixed assets: who has each asset, since when, and under which term. Issuing it …Stock movementsThe stock ledger: receipts, issues, adjustments, and transfers. A receipt recalculates the average cost; an i…Purchase quotesRequest pricing from N suppliers and compare them on a grid (rows = items, columns = suppliers, cell = price)…
Tenka Academy
Explore the AcademyStep-by-step learning paths for your industry, inside the platform.