2 min lesson
Build vs. buy
Explain your answer to "Why can't the general ledger simply hold the revenue-recognition detail and skip the subledger layer?" Add one concrete detail from the lesson.
Step 1 of 3
Build vs. buythe judgment they're testing
This role explicitly tests when to write code versus configure a platform. Native rev-rec inside a billing tool is enough for some businesses and a liability for others.
Contracts are simple - single obligation, ratable subscription.
Few modifications, no multi-element bundles.
Audit scope is light and volume is modest.
You want speed over control and can live with the tool's model.
Multi-element arrangements need real SSP allocation.
Modifications, co-terming and true-ups are frequent.
Usage and subscription mix on the same contract.
SOXSarbanes-Oxley Act. A US law that forces companies to keep auditable controls over any system that affects their financial reporting. Press Enter for the full definition.-grade audit trails and segregation of duties are required.
As Cursor's first finance systems hire on a greenfield stack, the instinct to architect a perfect subledger on day one is the wrong one. The honest answer is staged: start where native rev-rec covers the contracts you actually sign today, instrument the tie-out reconciliation early and pull the dedicated subledger in when contract complexity - not headcount - demands it.
Draw the three layers and put the hard logic in the middle one explicitly. Say the subledger keeps contract-level detail and posts summarized entries to the GL, then name your build-vs-buy trigger as contract complexity rather than revenue scale. That distinction - complexity, not size - is what a staff-level answer sounds like.