Further to Mutt's post, assessing the trimsheet calculation depends on
(a) the philosophy embodied in the trim sheet.
Usually the sheet designer builds in some fat within the apparent envelope to cover the error analysis which he/she ought to have done as part of the sheet workup. In this case Mutt's comment is correct ... if the calculation shows you just outside the sheet limits, the actual calculated CG might well be inside the AFM envelope.
Conversely, some designers don't bother and the trimsheet is a direct recast of the AFM/W&BM data. In this case, you don't have the comfort of some fudge factors ....
(b) the extent to which you use standard weights (masses) and actual in-service loading asymmetries.
It is usual to approximate various things in designing a sheet to make it manageable... things like using loading zones in the passenger and baggage areas, standard passenger and baggage weights, standard fuel SG, etc. If this is done, the calculation relies on the actual loading being similar to the presumed loading incorporated in the sheet design. In addition some allowance should be made in the error analysis to accommodate such problems ...
(c) the accuracy of your empty weight.
Mostly aircraft are weighed on jackpad cells, many of which are a bit suss in accuracy .. all are very critical with regard to jack axial misloading. I did a specific study into this many years ago and the extent of cell errors, in the face of careless weighing procedures, is quite frightening .. and you thought that your empty weight and CG is accurate ..... don't bet your life on it ...
From an engineering point of view, the aircraft won't suddenly become dangerous as you transit the published limits ... however, the limits are, in effect, lines in the sand within which things are considered acceptable and/or good, and outside of which, things progressively become unacceptable.
The legal situation is, however, somewhat more black and white. Really, do you need the pressure of having to account for slapdash loading at the enquiry ?
Speaking to the first post, it sounds like your company loading procedures generally need to be revisited .. the situation ought not to have occurred ....