Answer
Drill-down gaps are especially common on IBM i systems where the general ledger was built decades ago and summary balances were never designed to link back to the originating transaction without a manual lookup by account and period. An auditor asking to trace a single unusual journal entry back to its source document can turn into an afternoon of someone running queries against Db2 for i tables by hand, which is exactly the kind of finding that shows up in a management letter year after year until someone finally fixes it.
Buyers should run a structured conversation with finance and internal audit separately, since each group often knows about different pain points that never get compared side by side. Ask finance which reports they build manually every month because the system cannot produce them natively, and ask audit which controls they can describe in policy but cannot actually demonstrate with system evidence during testing. Prioritize fixes by risk and frequency rather than by which gap is easiest to close, since a rarely-used report that takes an extra hour matters less than a control weakness that shows up in every audit cycle. That prioritized list, not a feature comparison chart, should drive the actual software evaluation.