1Z0-1054-26 Oracle Fusion GL Certification (2026)

Oracle Fusion Cloud General Ledger – Certification‑Aligned Implementation & Configuration

These exam questions are structured using Oracle‑aligned topic‑weight distribution to ensure balanced mastery across all key 1Z0‑1054‑26 domains, including Enterprise Structures, Ledgers, Journals, Intercompany, Period Close, Reporting, Automation, and Redwood capabilities.

Matrix:

Concept Based Questions: 400+(Section1-6 - Single Correct)

Scenario Based Questions: 20(Section 6 - Multiple Correct) - Added in Feb 2026

Updates on 23 May 2026

A set of 10 scenario-based questions with more than one answer has been added for learners, covering multiple exam topics as listed in the scenarios below.

1 Enterprise Structures Business Process Model

2 Reference Data Sets

3 Enterprise Information for Non-HCM Users

4 Legal Entities Overview

5 Rapid Implementation

6 Ledger Options

7 Define Organizations (Intercompany Setup)

Review exam topics (with estimated Header % Weights)

Implementing Enterprise and Financial Reporting Structures (18%)

Explain the key features and capabilities of Enterprise and Financial Reporting Structures

• Define the fundamental structure of an enterprise

• Explain the functionalities of Legal Entity, Legal Jurisdiction, and Geographies

• Explain the Chart of Accounts design

Configure Financial Reporting Structures

• Set up Chart of Accounts structures and instances

• Set up Chart of Accounts Security

• Set up Account Hierarchies

• Set up Accounting Calendar and Currencies

Implementing Ledgers (14%)

Configure Ledgers

• Define Ledgers

• Define General Ledger Security

• Leverage General Ledgers Balances Cubes

Implementing and Managing Journals (16%)

Explain the key features and capabilities of processing journals

• Explain the process of creating journals from different sources

Configure Journals

• Set up Journal Objects

• Set up Journal Approval

• Manage journals

Processing Intercompany (14%)

Explain the key features and functionalities of Intercompany

• Describe the Intercompany functionality

Configure Intercompany transactions

• Set up Intercompany Balancing rules

• Configure additional Intercompany Balancing and Clearing options

• Implement other Intercompany setups

Process Intercompany transactions and reconciliations

• Manage Intercompany transactions

• Manage Intercompany reconciliations

Performing Period Close (10%)

Describe the Period Close process

• Explain Period Close

• Describe Reconciliations

• Explain Revaluation and Translation

• Describe consolidation options in GL

Configure Period Close (10%)

• Set up the Period Close Monitor

• Manage options for reconciliations

• Manage Revaluation and Translation

• Set up Allocations

• Manage Chart of Account Mappings for Consolidation

Configuring Financial Reports (12%)

Explain the various financial reporting options

• Explain the Financial Reporting Center and Reporting tools

• Describe the role of Financial Reporting Web Studio

• Explain OTBI reporting

• Describe the usage of Smart View reports

• Describe the General Accounting Dashboard components

Create Financial Reports and Analyses

• Define Account Groups

• Create Financial Reporting Web Studio reports

• Create OTBI Analyses

• Create Smart View reports

• Set up user‑defined infolets

• Leverage General Accounting infolets

Leveraging AI/ML/Mobile and Automation Features (4%)

• Use AI/ML/mobile and other automation features to streamline processes and drive operational efficiency

Enabling Redwood Capabilities (2%)

• Enable the Redwood capabilities and understand their implications on existing configurations

Take a quick look at the question style:

Q# Your company uses clearing accounts for intercompany transactions. What is the recommended first step to reconcile these accounts at period end?

1. Run the Automatic Clearing Accounts Reconciliation process to match eligible journal lines.

2. Manually adjust clearing account balances using suspense journals.

3. Disable clearing accounts reconciliation in ledger options.

4. Delete unreconciled journal lines from the ledger.

Correct Answer: 1

Explanation:
Option 1 is correct because the automatic reconciliation process groups and matches eligible journal lines efficiently. Options 2, 3, and 4 are incorrect as they either compromise data integrity or disable required functionality.

Q#(Scenario)
Your company must route approvals whenever any single journal line exceeds a monetary threshold, regardless of the batch total. In 26A, Oracle exposed clearer line‑level maximum attributes and reinforced using a Rule Evaluation Currency so that threshold comparisons are consistent across multi‑currency entries.
(Choose Two Correct Options)

1. Use Maximum Amount Journal Line category

2. Apply a Method Function to compute aggregates across all lines

3. Set a Rule Evaluation Currency

4. Use Journal Header category only

5. Use Entered Currency text comparison

Answer: 1, 3

Explanation:
Correct Answer: 1. Use Maximum Amount Journal Line category — 26A expands and clarifies the attribute categories available to the Journal Approval framework, including the explicit Maximum Amount Journal Line category. This category surfaces per‑line maxima (e.g., maximum accounted debit, credit, or net) so you can trigger routing when any line breaches a limit, even if the overall batch amount looks benign. This avoids the “masking” problem where a large outlier line hides inside a mixed batch. Using the line‑level maximums directly is cleaner and more maintainable than hand‑rolling logic in BPM, and it reflects the tighter, enumerated attribute listings that 26A brings compared with 25D’s less granular treatment.

Correct Answer: 3. Set a Rule Evaluation Currency — 26A explicitly notes that approval conditions can specify a Rule Evaluation Currency (e.g., ISO 4217 code) so the engine evaluates thresholds after a consistent conversion, typically using the corporate rate type on the accounting date. This prevents misrouting when journals are entered in multiple currencies; a nominally “small” entered amount in one currency could be “large” in corporate terms. Codifying a single evaluation currency is a recommended practice emphasized in 26A’s approval guidance and complements the new maximum‑amount categories to produce stable, predictable results in global deployments.

Option 2 incorrect: Apply a Method Function to compute aggregates across all lines — While Method Functions exist for advanced logic, they’re unnecessary for this scenario. 26A gives you line maxima out‑of‑the‑box, so invoking custom functions to approximate a maximum is redundant and harder to maintain. You would also risk inconsistencies if you later mix line‑level checks with batch‑level conditions. The 26A approach is to use the native category designed for line thresholds, not to simulate it with general‑purpose functions.

Option 4 incorrect: Use Journal Header category only — Header attributes summarize journal‑level details and DFFs, not the highest single line values. 26A’s distinction between header/batch vs. line categories is explicit; using only header fields will miss the exact risk the policy targets (one line above the limit). This would lead to false negatives in your routing.

Option 5 incorrect: Use Entered Currency text comparison — Textual or raw entered‑currency comparisons are fragile in multi‑currency contexts (lexicographic pitfalls, local formatting, and lack of proper conversion). 26A stresses Rule Evaluation Currency precisely to avoid this. Relying on text compares could flip decisions when formats or currencies change.

Domain: Journal Approval — Advanced Attribute Categories