Check whether the review fits your problem
The starting use case is a distributor or wholesaler with recurring approved returns, credit notes and applications that are difficult to follow through. A good initial question is whether approvals lead to the expected documents and whether those documents are used correctly. This is narrower than a full AP audit. Duplicate-payment recovery, rebate calculation, invoice OCR and universal supplier-statement ingestion are not implied features. Include another adjustment type only after its evidence and mapping have been agreed.
Define a 90-day window without losing older items
Choose the historical period, supplier set, currencies and source cut-off together. A 90-day sample can answer a focused process question but cannot establish the value of every unresolved item in the company. Older carry-forward cases may need separate inclusion. Record exclusions and incomplete populations before analysis, so no one extrapolates a sample total into a guaranteed business-wide recovery. The initial review is subject to qualification and an agreed scope.
Prepare three linked sources
The approval source needs supplier identifiers, the agreed amount, reference, date and currency. The credit source needs document identifiers, amounts, dates and a link to the expected event. The application source needs amounts, dates and a link to the credit. Clarify line versus document totals, cancellations, signs, tax basis and partial allocations. A signed-off mapping matters more than the export filename. The public Excel tracker is an educational case tracker, not a ready-made pilot import.
Agree the data boundary before sending files
Use the first conversation to establish whether a review is useful without financial attachments. Before real data is transferred, agree the contracting operator, access, hosting and processing arrangements, permitted fields, transfer method and retention/deletion expectations. Codes can reduce disclosure of supplier names, but amounts and dates remain confidential. The public demo does not activate a live client workspace. Data handling must be verified for the actual pilot.
Expect a traceable output, not a number alone
The agreed deliverable should identify the source coverage and exclusions, a list of potential exceptions, the supporting references, signed differences, currency and the proposed owner or next action. Classify timing, missing evidence and uncertain matching alongside substantive gaps. A reviewer can then reproduce a calculation and decide whether more evidence is needed. Figures should remain separated by stage and currency. Your finance team verifies the result before treating it as a claim or financial outcome.
Evaluate usefulness with the team
For the fictional example in the table, a EUR 2,000 issuance gap may be explained by a missing export row, a later note or a genuine outstanding document. The EUR 3,000 application question may be an agreed future offset. The point of the review is to distinguish those explanations. Judge a pilot by evidence completeness, reviewer time, useful next actions and recurring effort, not only by the largest possible amount displayed. No case study or recovery result is claimed by this example.
Make the commercial next step explicit
The first 90-day review is offered to qualified private-beta companies with scope agreed in advance. There is no automatic subscription or payment. A continuing paid pilot requires a separate agreement on scope and price. Your team retains responsibility for supplier communication and accounting decisions. To begin, share your role, approximate supplier count and the process problem through the enquiry form; do not send account passwords, invoices or raw supplier exports.
Fictional deliverable fragment — EUR, one approved event
| Field | Example | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Approved / issued / applied | 10,000 / 8,000 / 5,000 | Same supplier, basis and cut-off |
| Issuance difference | 2,000 | Approval and credit-note check |
| Application difference | 3,000 | AP posting and timing check |
| Financial outcome | Not yet confirmed | Requires evidence; not a recovery claim |
Your action checklist
- Name the decision that the review should support.
- Record period, suppliers, currencies and exclusions.
- Agree mapping and safe transfer before real data.
- Require a source-backed handoff and human verification.
Practical questions
Is this an independent statutory audit?
No. It is a scoped operational reconciliation review. It provides no statutory audit opinion or assurance certification.
Will you guarantee a recovery amount?
No. A discrepancy may have a legitimate explanation. Recovery requires separate evidence of the actual outcome.
What should I send with the enquiry?
Contact details and a high-level description of the process. No financial attachments or access credentials.
Can we continue after the review?
A paid recurring pilot may be agreed separately if the review proves useful. It is not activated automatically.
Sources and further reading
Sources explain general processes. Examples and checklists were developed for VendorCredits. A link does not imply partnership or endorsement.
All examples are fictional. Educational material, not accounting, tax or legal advice. Verify findings against the underlying records.