Enterprise Resource Planning Blogs by Members
Gain new perspectives and knowledge about enterprise resource planning in blog posts from community members. Share your own comments and ERP insights today!
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Active Contributor


Over and over again I have been seeing questions about the M7093 "Inconsistent Field Selection" message, that is generated during material documents postings. The article explains the route cause of the message, its logic and a tool to quickly rectify the problem.

The error message details

The long text of the error message M7093 documents the message at length and provides all the details on how to proceed. That is the good, old SAP school of handling errors.
Short Text

Fld selectn for mvmt type & / acct & differs for & (&)


Comparison of the field selection strings from movement type and G/L account has revealed that there is an incompatible field selection combination at one or more points.

Field for which the field selection is different:


On the movement type screen, a given field is a mandatory-entry field, whereas on the G/L account screen, the same field is suppressed.

System Response

You cannot post this transaction, unless you have changed the field selection adequately.


Contact your system administrator.

Action to be taken by the system administrator

Check whether any postings resulting from this movement type are to be made to the G/L account determined automatically. If you find that the G/L account is not correct, check the automatic account determination in the Customizing system for valuation.

If the G/L account is correct, use the report RM07CUFA to compare the field selection for the movement type with the field selection for the G/L account and change the incorrect settings or the field status group of the G/L account.

The problems stems from inconsistent settings of field statuses of material movements versus account groups. The following table shows which combinations are valid and which are not:

The logic is very straight forward - a material movement fields status needs to be such, so a material document can be posted inconsistently to FI. For instance: if a field is suppressed on a material movement and the same field is obligatory on an account group, then a material document cannot be posted - this case is illustrated in the bottom left corner of the above table.

Resolving inconsistencies

The message long text mentions utility report RM07CUFA. The report quickly analyzes MM and FI field statuses, shows any inconsistencies and allows to directly jump to respective configuration and quickly update the settings.

The report is started for a material movement type and a range of FI accounts:

The result is a list of all MM and FI field statuses, divided into field groups, with conflicts clearly marked:

Here, a problem with the Text field is clearly visible. The field is obligatory as per MM status and suppressed in FI - that is inconsistent.

A log of all the problems can be display with the button:

Respective MM and FI configuration of field statuses is easily accessible from both the result screen and the error log one:

I will change the setting from required entry to suppressed, get back to the report and refresh it. Now the Text field is suppressed both in MM and FI which rectifies the problem:

Beware that field status settings are configuration so depending on your system setup a transport request might be required.

The report is not assigned to any transaction, so it needs to be started from either SE38 or SA38.



Labels in this area