The Correction to the Correction

Advance Create (8798) filed five corrections to internal control reports on 14 August 2026. Three of them say the same thing about themselves: that they are corrections to corrections.

The reason line on the 第26期 document reads in one sentence. The internal control report for that term — 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021 — was filed on 27 December 2021. There were errors in it, so a 訂正内部統制報告書 was filed on 28 February 2025. 「その後新たな不備が発覚したため」 — subsequently new deficiencies came to light — and so this correction is filed now, under 金融商品取引法第24条の４の５第１項.

The 第27期 and 第28期 documents carry the same three-part sentence with their own dates: reports filed 19 December 2022 and 18 December 2023, both corrected on the same 28 February 2025, both corrected again on 14 August 2026.

The other two do not have the middle step. The 第29期 document gives 28 February 2025 as the date of the report it corrects, and the 第30期 document gives 17 December 2025. Those are first corrections.

So one filing date carries a company's internal control reports for five consecutive terms, from a term that closed in September 2021 to one that closed in September 2025, and three of the five are on their second pass.

Every one of Advance Create's five names ３評価結果に関する事項 under 【訂正事項】, the section on the results of the evaluation. The 第30期 document names one more beside it, ４付記事項.

Four days later, five more came from Abalance (3856), covering 第22期 through 第26期 — terms beginning July 2020 and ending March 2025. Two of those five reach back the same way, without the same words. The 第23期 line names a report filed 29 September 2022 and a 訂正報告書 filed 14 March 2024; the 第24期 line names a report of 27 September 2023 and the same 14 March 2024. They give two filing dates where the other three give one, and the string 新たな不備 appears in none of their reason lines. The account of what prompted the restatement sits further in, inside ３【評価結果に関する事項】: the 第22期 document replaces a two-line finding that internal control was effective with a passage naming a 第三者委員会 set up in September 2025, a 検証委員会 after it, and a numbered list of the deficiencies found.

So five of the ten are second passes over the same term. Three name the earlier correction and add その後新たな不備が発覚したため; two name the earlier correction and its date, and put the account of what prompted it in ３【評価結果に関する事項】. Ten corrections across five days, from two filers, reaching back to reports filed in 2021.

The internal control report is built of numbered items, and the evaluation result is one of them. All ten of these corrections name ３評価結果に関する事項 under 【訂正事項】; one of the ten, Advance Create's 第30期 document, names ４付記事項 beside it. How much text sits behind that one item is another matter.

That is also why the chain shows. When the item being corrected is the evaluation result, a second correction to the same term means the evaluation result was restated twice.

The covers carry a field the ordinary correction forms do not: 【最高財務責任者の役職氏名】, the title and name of the chief financial officer, printed beside the representative's. The two filers answer it differently. Advance Create's five print a title and a name there. Abalance's five print 該当事項はありません, the form's own way of saying there is nothing to enter.

They also carry 【根拠条文】, the provision relied on, printed as a field of its own rather than left to the reason line. All ten print 金融商品取引法第24条の４の５第１項 there.

On the counts. The ten are the documents EDINET's list describes as 訂正内部統制報告書 with a submission timestamp between 14 and 19 August 2026, counted by distinct document ID from an index pulled on 23 August. Five carry Advance Create's securities code and five Abalance's.

The dates and the phrases are read from each document's reason field as printed. Advance Create's three-date lines print the original report, then the term, then the first correction; Abalance's two-date lines print the original report, then the first correction, then the term.

What this does not show: what changed in every case. The cover and reason field of all ten were read here; the evaluation-result section before and after was read in two. It counts what the reason lines say about the sequence, not what the sequence produced.

Five documents on their second pass over the same term, filed across five days: three whose reason lines name the correction they are correcting and add その後新たな不備が発覚したため, and two whose reason lines name it by date and put the account further in.