Executive answer
An information request should become a controlled timeline from notice through delivery acknowledgement and follow-up. Break every item into question, period, entity, format, source, owner, review and date. Functions contribute evidence, but the company submits one coordinated response.
The applicable date and procedure come from the notified act. The first control is therefore a legal summary, not a generic calendar. From it, create a reverse plan reserving extraction, reconciliation, technical and legal review, approval, upload and contingency time.
Research and verification cutoff: August 2, 2026. Confirm the act, notice and specific deadline with advisers; this timeline does not replace procedural rules.
Minute zero: preserve the act
Save the complete document, schedules, envelope or digital evidence, acknowledgement and metadata. Record recipient, time and channel. Do not circulate incomplete screenshots as the official version.
Legal validates authenticity, addressee and effect. Record the controlled date and source. Escalate uncertainty before setting the plan.
Hour one: request summary
The summary covers authority, act, legal basis, year, taxes, entities, transactions, items, format, channel and deadline. Distinguish requests for explanation, document, dataset and calculation.
Assign an identifier to every item and subitem. That code follows the file, matrix, review and acknowledgement, preventing omissions and duplicate responses.
Internal day one: RACI
Name the response lead, lawyer, technical specialist, accounting owner, data owner and approver. Assign preparer and reviewer by item and provide backup for absences.
The lead manages scope and calendar. Functions do not independently decide what to deliver; questions enter the register and receive a controlled decision.
Parse the question
Underline verbs, periods, subjects and objects: provide, explain, reconcile, identify and detail. Separate multiple questions inside one item. Define ambiguity before extraction.
Create an internal restatement without changing meaning. Legal confirms scope and technical teams identify data. This prevents answering a different question accurately.
Master register
Use columns for ID, text, interpretation, entity, period, source, custodian, preparer, reviewer, status, risk, exhibit, response, date and acknowledgement. Protect formulas and permissions.
The register drives the dashboard but does not replace evidence. It links to files and retains user and date for changes.
Reverse calendar
Reserve delivery and confirmation first; then contingency, approval, legal review, technical review, reconciliation, drafting, extraction and interviews. Internal gates precede the official date.
Show dependencies. A benchmark cannot be reviewed before segmentation arrives; translation cannot finish before the original freezes. Update daily.
Internal data request
Specify field, period, format, system, population and date. Avoid “send everything.” Include an example and question owner.
Custodians deliver through a secure repository and state the source. The lead confirms receipt, completeness and limitations. Context-free files are not accepted.
Reproducible extraction
Preserve query, parameters, filters, date, system and control total. Document transformations when combining information. Keep source files unchanged.
Validate rows, duplicates, currency, signs, entity and period. Compare with ledger or another total. File size does not equal reliability.
Interviews
Use interviews for process and decisions systems cannot explain. Prepare questions by item and request contemporaneous documents. Record participant, date and follow-up.
Interviews do not replace available evidence. Investigate contradictions rather than deleting them. Legal defines the note protocol.
Initial draft
Answer directly before adding context. Use facts, amounts and exhibits. Distinguish records, calculations and interpretations.
Avoid “always” and “never” unless population proves them. State limitations. The response should stand alone and exhibits should prove it.
Reconciliation
Match figures to accounting, report and applicable filings. Build bridges for base, currency, period, VAT, adjustment and classification. No difference remains “timing” without calculation.
A reviewer reproduces totals and samples. The reconciliation always exists internally even if delivery depends on scope and strategy.
Request a Request Response Sprint to turn every item into a controlled, reconciled and approved delivery before the deadline.
Technical review
The specialist validates transaction, method, FAR, comparables, range and terminology. Confirm consistency with the report and file and explain changes.
Resolve comments in the register rather than emailed copies. The preparer accepts or escalates each observation.
Legal review
Legal reviews scope, sufficiency, rights, confidentiality, form and consistency. It prevents unjustified over-response and required omissions.
Legal also confirms references and any appropriate reservation. It does not replace technical accuracy.
Personal and confidential information
Classify personal, commercial and technical information. Apply lawful controls without making required material unreadable. Maintain a full internal version and an authorized delivery version.
Document redaction, translation or treatment. Do not alter substantive data. Consult the responsible function.
Translation
Freeze the original before translation. Use a glossary and review contractual and technical terms. Identify translator, version and date.
Later changes appear in both languages. Keep original and translation together.
Index and naming
Follow the request items and list file, description, period and pages or tabs. Names start with the controlled ID and final version.
Test links and references outside the preparer’s device. Remove local paths and temporary files.
Quality gate
An independent reviewer confirms every item is answered, exhibits open, figures tie, hidden comments are removed and metadata does not expose drafts. Check signatures, dates and readability.
The gate records findings and closure. Any limitation requires explicit approval.
Executive approval
Tax and legal owners approve the package; the CFO joins for material exposure or correction. Approval identifies version, scope and accepted risks.
No change follows without repeating the control. Urgent changes are logged and reviewed.
Upload test
Confirm size, format, names, portal, credentials and connectivity before the final day. Use test files only where permitted and avoid unnecessary sensitive data.
Prepare an authorized contingency for failures. The team knows who executes and observes.
Delivery and acknowledgement
Upload the approved version, verify the list and capture full acknowledgement. Record date, time, user, channel and files. Preserve transaction evidence.
Compare hash, size or attributes with the final package. Delivery ends only when the submitted package matches approval.
The next day
Archive package, acknowledgement, register and decisions. Update timeline and exposure. Tell stakeholders what was delivered and what remains.
Continue preservation while review remains open. Prepare likely questions created by the response.
Later requests
Open a new cycle linked to the first. Reuse data only after validating period and definition. Compare responses to prevent contradiction.
Maintain a key-assertions register: risk control, method, reported amount and supporting document. Cite or explain every change.
Unavailable information
Document searches, custodians and systems. Do not invent or silently substitute. Legal assesses the response and relevant alternative evidence.
Absence may expose a control failure. Open a prospective action with owner and date in addition to the procedural response.
Change management
If scope changes, re-estimate tasks and critical path. Do not retain obsolete internal dates. The lead communicates impact and obtains resources.
New findings update risk but do not enter approved responses without review. Traceability explains each position change.
Sprint metrics
Track completed items, missing documents, open reconciliations, critical findings, days to delivery and late reviews—not file volume alone.
Afterward, measure rework, contradictions and delay causes. Use the data for the next request.
Decision log
Some questions require choices rather than extraction: the interpretation of an ambiguous term, whether two datasets share a population, how a limitation is described or whether an exhibit is responsive. Record the issue, alternatives, technical view, legal view, decision maker, date and effect.
The log keeps later reviewers from reopening settled points without new information. It also explains why a response used one approach when another looked possible. Where the choice affects several items, link the decision to each so later changes propagate consistently.
Capacity and escalation
Estimate hours and specialist needs by item. A short request may still require large data work; a long one may reuse a controlled population. The lead identifies bottlenecks and obtains resources before they reach the critical path.
Escalation criteria include missing system access, irreconcilable totals, unavailable custodians, translation delays and technical positions with material exposure. Escalation is not failure: it is a planned control that gives leadership time to choose.
Handoffs between functions
Every internal delivery should include context, control total, limitations and next owner. The recipient explicitly accepts or rejects it; placing a file in a folder does not transfer accountability. This matters between systems, accounting, tax and legal, where the same term may describe different populations.
Use entry and exit criteria: a dataset does not enter reconciliation without source and total; a response does not enter legal review without technical approval; a package does not enter executive approval with critical findings open. Gates make quality visible and keep the final reviewer from absorbing all rework.
Handling detected errors
When an error appears, freeze the affected file and determine scope: data, formula, classification, period or assertion. Identify dependent responses and exhibits. Do not fix only the visible cell. A new version retains the bridge and approval.
If an error affects a prior delivery, legal determines the proper response under the act and law. The register separates internal correction, supplementary response and prospective action. Early internal transparency supports informed decisions.
External adviser coordination
Establish one channel, deliverables, dates, assumptions and internal owner. Advisers should not receive uncontrolled files or respond directly without authorization. Their work follows the same reconciliation and version gates.
The company retains models, sources and explanation sufficient to reproduce the work. A final PDF without workpapers can become another evidence gap. Agreements and protocol govern confidentiality and retention.
Post-delivery retrospective
Within a week, review what arrived late, what was redone, which contradiction emerged and which control failed. Classify actions across master data, agreements, contemporaneous documentation, systems and governance, with owner and date.
The retrospective does not change the delivered package. It improves the next cycle and current compliance. Retain metrics proving that detected weaknesses were corrected rather than merely discussed.
Illustrative example
An official letter contains twelve service and adjustment items. The team creates R01–R12, sees three share a dataset, freezes one extraction, reconciles figures, translates agreements and applies dual review. It tests upload the day before, compares attributes at delivery and archives the acknowledgement. A later request links to the original register.
Warning signs
Warnings include dates calculated without validating the act, ownerless items, email drafting, multiple datasets, unindexed exhibits, outdated translations, last-minute upload, no acknowledgement and post-approval changes. Undocumented interpretation of another question is another.
These do not decide the merits but increase omission and contradiction risk.
Conclusion
The timeline converts an information request into a verifiable process. Every item moves from interpretation through source, reconciliation, review, approval, delivery and acknowledgement without losing traceability.
Central control lets specialists contribute without fragmented answers and creates a reproducible record for later stages.
Request a Request Response Sprint to manage the request from notice through acknowledgement and follow-up.
Verified official sources
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Federal Tax Code, according to the act and procedure.
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Income Tax Law, obligations applicable to related parties.
- SAT, 2026 RMF rules and annexes, for current rules and forms where relevant.
Verification closed on August 2, 2026. The notified act determines the specific scope, form and deadline.