MIR submission: manual with review, or automatic?

One of the most useful — and least well answered — compliance questions is this: does someone have to review every report before MIR submission?

The honest answer: it depends on how you operate. What should not happen is that submit mode is an accident of the day.

Manual mode (with review)

A fit when:

• You want human control before communicating.
• Volume is manageable.
• Shifts include people who know edge cases (foreign documents, special stays).

Upside: fewer surprises. Cost: discipline. If “review” becomes “leave it for tomorrow”, you lose the benefit.

Automatic mode

A fit when:

• Digital check-in already validates well at source.
• Volume makes one-by-one review too slow.
• You prefer the system to move and only intervene on exceptions.

Upside: speed and less shift dependency. Cost: you need strong prior capture and the ability to react if a lote fails.

The cost of not deciding

Many properties live in an unwritten third mode: sometimes we review, sometimes we submit late, sometimes nobody knows the status. That mode is the most expensive.

The decision should be company-level, not front-desk improvisation.

How Reserviq handles it

In Reserviq, MIR submission is configured at company level:

• Manual, with review.
• Automatic, when operations are ready for it.

You can also check submission status and fix issues when needed. Compliance stops being an improvised ritual and becomes a flow with an owner.

A simple way to choose

Ask:

1. How many daily check-ins no longer fit a serious review?
2. Is your bigger problem data quality, or lack of time to submit?
3. Who responds when a lote comes back with errors?

If quality fails, fix capture first (digital check-in). If quality is solid and time is the bottleneck, automatic starts to make sense.

Next step

Want to see both paths for your lodging model? Talk to us in a demo.