Does the Attorney General have the authority to modify the abstract of judgment to clearly reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment?

We agree with the Attorney General that the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement, but even if we were to accept defendant's interpretation, it is clear from our review and from the responses that, at best, the meaning of the abstract of judgment on these points is unclear and confusing. The abstract of judgment must be modified to clearly reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment. (See People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324 ["it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment"].) There is no dispute that the trial court's ruling was clear, and that any discrepancies in the abstract of judgment were clerical in nature and may be corrected on appeal. (Ibid. ["discrepancies between an abstract and the actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal"].)