Vendor credit recovery starts after the discrepancy is explained.

Choose outcome labels before reporting amounts

Define the terms with finance. “Document located” means an existing note was found. “Additional credit issued” means a verified new document resolved an agreed value question. “Credit applied” describes its confirmed treatment in AP. “Cash refund received” needs cash evidence and matching to the case. A timing explanation or corrected mapping may close a review without any new financial benefit. These suggested labels prevent the same event being counted repeatedly as it moves through a workflow.

Investigate the simplest explanations first

Check whether a later export contains the note, a different reference explains the link, an approved deduction changes the expected amount or another supplier account contains the application. Review reversals and cancellations before relying on totals. An unanswered email does not establish entitlement. Supplier statements can help explain the account, but a statement omitting the same expected credit as your ledger may still appear to agree. Keep the original approval in the evidence chain.

Separate supplier action from internal action

A genuine missing document may need the supplier owner to ask for a reference or issue date. A fully issued but unused credit may instead need AP to check the agreed settlement route. Do not instruct an automatic deduction from a payment just because a calculator shows a difference. An authorised finance team needs to confirm terms, accounting treatment and any dispute. VendorCredits provides the review context; it does not make payments, enforce claims or send supplier messages on your behalf.

Follow one fictional case through the changes

At the first snapshot, approval is EUR 10,000, issued credits EUR 8,000 and applications EUR 5,000. The two differences are EUR 2,000 and EUR 3,000. Later, a EUR 2,000 note is verified and the issued total becomes EUR 10,000. The issuance difference becomes zero, while the application balance becomes EUR 5,000 until further applications are confirmed. That larger balance is not a new loss: value has moved between stages. Only after EUR 10,000 is demonstrably applied are both checks zero.

Do not count the same value twice

An additional EUR 2,000 note that is later applied is not EUR 4,000 of benefit. Linking the note, application and final outcome to one case prevents that mistake. Likewise, do not combine EUR and PLN into one amount without an agreed conversion method, date and purpose. Keep negative differences visible as review signals rather than treating them as negative recoveries or netting them away against unrelated suppliers.

Close the case with a reproducible explanation

Record the documents that resolved the question, the dates, the amount and currency, the reviewer and the reason for closure. Keep the original and later snapshots distinguishable. If a finding was caused by an incomplete source, say so. If a credit was already validly applied, record that rather than implying the tool recovered it. A useful review improves the process even when it finds no additional money, provided that the conclusion can be supported.

Use the result to improve the next cycle

Group causes such as missing references, incomplete exports, unclear ownership and late handoffs. Agree a limited corrective action and see whether the same issue repeats. A recurring review may be worth discussing if evidence collection and ownership remain costly; it should not be sold on a speculative recovery percentage. Start with the worked example or the free tracker, then discuss a scoped review without sending confidential documents through the public form.

Fictional case progression — EUR, same approval throughout

Your action checklist

1. Define what counts as a document, application or cash outcome.
2. Link all events to the same case without double counting.
3. Keep currencies, snapshots and review stages separate.
4. Document timing or data-quality explanations as such.

Practical questions