Vendor credits in AP need more than an open-balance report.

Keep the approval outside the blind spot

A ledger usually describes recorded transactions. An approved return awaiting a credit memo can therefore be absent from a report of posted credits. Bring in the separate approved-return or agreed-adjustment population, with source dates and supplier references. Compare that population with issued credits instead of assuming that every approval already appears in AP. This complements supplier-statement reconciliation rather than replacing it.

Decide who resolves which question

The supplier owner checks whether the agreed value was credited, whether an authorised deduction explains a gap and whether another document is due. AP checks which documents were posted, where the credit was applied and whether a residual balance is deliberate. A process owner reviews unresolved cases and evidence standards. In a small company one person may perform several roles, but the checks should remain distinguishable. Do not let a supplier chase become a substitute for an internal ledger check.

Set the reporting boundary before triage

Record a supplier scope, a cut-off date, included currencies and the basis of amounts. Keep opening unresolved items visible rather than dropping them at month-end. If a note was received after cut-off, attach that explanation to the original finding and decide when to retest. ACCA’s supplier reconciliation guidance illustrates why timing and unprocessed credit notes can explain differences; it does not make every open item a supplier debt.

Use statuses that describe evidence

A practical queue separates awaiting approval evidence, missing document, application check, timing explanation and closed with evidence. Those are suggested review labels, not mandatory accounting classifications or a claim that every label is implemented in the current demo. The essential fields are an owner, next action, review date and reference to the evidence. “Supplier contacted” is progress. It is not equivalent to “credit issued” or “credit applied”.

Handle the fictional case without double chasing

A supplier has approved EUR 10,000, issued EUR 8,000 and had EUR 5,000 applied. The supplier owner checks the EUR 2,000 issuance difference. AP checks the EUR 3,000 balance on the issued notes. A response identifying an already-issued EUR 2,000 note resolves the document-search question only after the note is verified and the source population updated. The AP team still needs to check whether that note and the earlier notes have been applied.

Measure the control before adding software

Count cases with complete source evidence, cases waiting for a known date and cases that cannot be matched reliably. Record how long a reviewer spends preparing and resolving a case. Keep amounts by currency and avoid a single total labelled “savings”. If a well-owned spreadsheet is sufficient, retain it. A shared workflow becomes useful when ownership, evidence history or recurring volume is the actual bottleneck, not simply because a dashboard looks better.

Use a defined handoff to VendorCredits

Start the conversation with the process, approximate supplier count and the issue you want to test. No financial files are needed in the public enquiry. A qualified review can use a selected 90-day historical window after scope, operator details and data-handling arrangements are agreed. VendorCredits does not post entries, run payments or contact your suppliers automatically. Your finance team validates the findings and decides what happens next.

Suggested ownership for the fictional EUR 10,000 / 8,000 / 5,000 case

Your action checklist

1. Agree who owns issuance and who owns application.
2. Bring approved but uncredited events into the review.
3. Carry forward unresolved cases across reporting periods.
4. Close only with a documented source explanation.

Practical questions