ASC 842 Lease Review Costs: Verify the $39 Manual Rate Before Committing

This guide delivers a like-for-like comparison of ASC 842 (US GAAP) lease review costs at $39 per review.

It pinpoints the break even point at 187 leases to verify before committing to an assistive AI option.

Key Factors to Consider

This section alone lists the top decision criteria and numbers. For a US GAAP close under ASC 842, the first decision criterion is scope completeness. Before comparing any totals, you must require a written list of the exact lease population each option claims to cover. A quote for a subset cannot be compared to a quote for the full set, so treat "covers your leases" as unverified until that list is delivered in full.

The second criterion is review rigor. Do not accept an "automated" or "AI-assisted" label as equivalent to a full lease review. Ask each option for a written breakdown of exactly what its process covers for ASC 842 (US GAAP) — which lease terms are extracted, which are checked by hand, and who signs off. If an option cannot name which steps it performs for your lease population, treat that as a verification gap before comparing any totals.

The third criterion is a like-for-like total. Only after locking scope and rigor should you compare full charges for that identical population. With the stated baseline of $39 per manual lease review, the arithmetic break even for the assistive AI path is 187 leases. Verify that division against your own quote, because the threshold is only valid if both totals are for the same scope, the same rigor, and the $39 is the live charge for manual review rather than a partial rate.

The numbers that matter are not the per-item figure alone, but that threshold count. If your verified population is below 187 leases, the manual total at $39 may be lower for that set. If your verified population is above 187 leases, the assistive AI total must still be checked against that same $39 baseline for every item in scope. Any change to scope or to the proof of rigor must be re-checked against the 187-lease break even before you commit.

Ultimately, treat every quote as provisional until you have all three: a complete scope list, written proof of review rigor, and a like-for-like total with the 187-lease check applied. These are the only criteria to lock in at this stage, because totals shift with scope and rigor, not with the name of the option.

Common Mistakes

One pitfall is assuming an automated pass is enough to complete a lease review. For example, a team may run a text-extraction scan on a batch of lease PDFs and mark every document as complete, only to later find that several are scanned images with embedded tables. The check is not whether a scan ran, but whether the document type allowed full text capture. If any document in the batch is not machine-readable text, route it to a manual check at the $39-per-review baseline before it can be counted as reviewed.

Another pitfall is comparing unlike populations without confirming the definition of what is being counted. A team might see one option report a number of "reviewed" leases while another reports a similar number of "processed" leases, and treat them as equal. The definition of "reviewed" could exclude certain lease types, while "processed" could include them. To avoid this, require a written list from each option stating exactly which lease types are included under ASC 842 (US GAAP), and only compare totals against the $39 baseline after forcing both lists to the same population.

A final check is to not rely on a product label alone to prove coverage. Drawing from the description of assistive systems in the Assistive Listening Owners Manual, the term "assistive" refers to a specific support function, not a blanket guarantee of full review. For example, a feature described as assistive may only flag certain elements, but not confirm the full set of required lease terms. Because of this, the rule is to test against a small, known sample of problem documents from your own population, and verify the results against that sample before committing to any option. This test will reveal gaps that a label cannot.

Insider Tactics

This section alone gives non-obvious strategies and timing tips.

One non-obvious strategy is to treat any claim of "assistive AI" as a testable deliverable, not a label. Ask the option to show proof of a manual expert review step on a sample of your own leases, not just an automated extraction output. If the returned sample only shows extracted fields with no notes from a hand review, that is a direct reason to verify the live, complete option before committing to the full batch.

To make that proof meaningful, don't ask for a generic "passed" stamp. For your sample, request exactly which steps were performed — extraction, term validation, human sign-off — and who performed them. If the response only lists automation with no mention of a manual pass, that is a direct reason to verify the live, complete option before committing to the full batch.

The most overlooked timing tip is to run this sample check before you lock into any bulk submission path. Many review paths become harder to change once a large batch is queued, so the window to compare like-for-like totals and terms can close without warning. By forcing the proof at the point before bulk upload, you are not rushing the decision, you are protecting your ability to make one at all.

For the sample itself, pick leases with known edge cases that you can spot on your own. You are not trying to audit every detail, you are trying to judge if the claimed manual step actually happened. If the returned sample only shows extracted fields with no notes from a hand review, that is something you can verify for yourself without relying on a broad claim.

Finally, treat that sample result as a go or no-go trigger for the live option. Don't expand the sample to the whole population to get that answer. By making this a fixed checkpoint, you use the same logic of proof over promise, and you keep your commitment tied to what was actually shown, not what was advertised.

Comparison

The side-by-side must be like-for-like in both population and required verification. If both options are quoted to cover the exact same lease population for ASC 842, then the manual total is strictly count times $39. The assistive AI total is only equal to that at 187 leases by the stated break even. Any difference in what is included, such as lease types left out of one quote, would invalidate that parity. Because of that, the stated $7,293 is only a comparison point if the scope is identical on paper before any commitment.

When each option wins comes down strictly to count relative to that threshold. The manual option can win when the lease count is below 187, because you would pay only for the leases reviewed at $39 each and would not reach the stated break even. The assistive AI option can win when the lease count is at or above 187, because it reaches parity at 187 leases by the stated figure and can be the lower stated total beyond that point. This is a cost-based comparison only, and no other advantage is claimed here by that figure alone.

Before committing to either option, verify the live quote for assistive AI against $39 Per Manual Lease Review, since the break even of 187 leases is the stated figure and must be confirmed as current for that vendor. Also verify the written scope line by line for both quotes, because the winner by stated cost is only valid if the totals are like-for-like. With those two checks, the decision is determined strictly by lease count relative to 187 leases.

Frequently Asked Questions

At what lease count does the assistive AI path reach break even?

The arithmetic break even for the assistive AI path is 187 leases.

Can I compare a vendor quote for only part of my leases to the $39 manual baseline?

No, a quote for a subset cannot be compared to a quote for the full set, so you must require a written list of the exact lease population each option claims to cover before making any comparison.

If a vendor labels its solution as 'AI-assisted,' does that mean it provides a full lease review?

No, you must not accept an 'automated' or 'AI-assisted' label as equivalent to a full lease review and must ask for a written breakdown of exactly what its process covers for ASC 842 (US GAAP).

What specific process details must I request from each option?

You must ask each option for a written breakdown of exactly what its process covers for ASC 842 (US GAAP) — which lease terms are extracted, which are checked by hand, and who signs off.

What should I do if a vendor cannot name which steps it performs for my lease population?

If an option cannot name which steps it performs for your lease population, treat that as a verification gap before comparing any totals.

At the break even point, what is the implied total for manual reviews?

With the stated baseline of $39 per manual lease review at 187 leases, the implied total is $7,293 to verify before committing to an assistive AI option.

Quick answers

Also worth reading: 2026 Test: LLM Rate Lookups Miss 15.8% in ASC 830 Close: 2026 Test: LLM Rate Lookups · Month End Close Review: 480 to 90 Minutes, Sign Off or Not: Month End Close Review: 480 · Month End Variance Review: 73% Faster Close, Override or Not: Month End Variance Review: 73%