Skip to content
allanninal.dev/build
Collaborate

Part 4 of 7 · Invoice dispute triager series ~5 min read

How the evidence gets gathered

This is the part that saves the days. Everything else is routing; this is the system going and finding the delivery note so that a person does not have to ask operations for it and wait until tomorrow.

Key takeaways

  • Each reason pulls a different, short list of documents. Narrow is the design goal.
  • The summary states the answer, not the documents: “POD signed for 10”, not “POD attached”.
  • Where the evidence contradicts the customer, it says so plainly and still asks a human.
  • Where the evidence supports the customer, it says that too, which is the useful half.
  • Missing evidence is a finding: an unsigned delivery note is worth knowing about immediately.

What each reason pulls

ReasonGatheredThe one-line answer it produces
QuantityDelivery note, picking record, any POD image“POD signed for 10 by J. Reed, 14:20, second vehicle.”
PriceThe quote, the price list on the invoice date, prior invoices“Quoted at £320/unit on 2 June; invoiced at £320.”
DuplicatePayments in the period, invoices with a similar total“No payment received. Invoice 4390 is £3,240 for a different job.”
Never orderedThe purchase order, the job record, who requested it“Requested by email from p.hart@ on 12 May; PO 8841.”
Wrong entityAccount setup, the contract, the last six invoices“Account is set to Acme Ltd; last six invoices billed the same way.”
Not the invoiceNothing“This is about the work, not the bill — sent to Dan.”

The third column is the point. A system that attaches five documents has moved the reading job from operations to accounts. A system that states the answer in one line and attaches the document that proves it has actually done the work.

Narrow on purpose

How evidence is gathered and turned into a one-screen decisionA vertical chain of five steps entered by a box labelled Classified dispute, carrying one reason and one invoice line. Step one fetches the documents for that reason from S3 and the ledger, three documents rather than twelve. Step two asks whether anything is missing, exiting to Say what is missing, which is itself a finding. Step three compares the evidence with the claim using plain arithmetic. Step four writes the one-liner, which is the answer rather than a list of files. Step five sends one screen to a person, with the decision first and the evidence below it. A note says the comparison is arithmetic and the model is never asked whether the customer is right.AWS ACCOUNTClassified disputeone reason, one lineFetch for this reasonthree documents, not twelveRecordsS3 and the ledgerAnything missing?Say what is missingitself a findingyesCompare with the claimplain arithmeticWrite the one-linerthe answer, not the filesOne screen to a persondecision, then evidenceThe comparison is arithmetic. The model is not asked whether the customer is right.
Fig 1. Gathering, comparing and summarising. The model classified; from here everything is lookup and subtraction, and the human gets an answer rather than a folder.
  • Storage
  • App integration
  • Management
  • Analytics
  • People

Missing evidence is a finding

A quantity dispute where no signed delivery note can be found is not a gathering failure. It is the single most important thing the system can tell you, because it means you cannot substantiate the delivery — and that is true whether or not the customer is right on this occasion.

So a missing document is stated first, in plain terms: “No signed POD on file for invoice 4412.” That sentence changes both the response to this dispute and, if it appears repeatedly, a process in the warehouse. Systems that quietly return what they found and omit what they did not are hiding the more useful half.

Saying when the customer is right

About a third of the time the evidence supports the customer, and the summary has to say so as plainly as it says the reverse. “Quote dated 2 June is £280/unit; invoiced at £320” is a sentence that costs the business money, and burying it under an attachment would be a design choice about whose interests the system serves.

It still goes to a person rather than triggering an automatic credit note, for the same reason everything else in this series does: the evidence may be complete and the situation may still have context in it that no record holds. But it goes to a person with the answer already written.

The one screen

What a person sees, in order

  • The verdict line. “POD signed for 10 by J. Reed at 14:20. Second vehicle delivered separately.”
  • The claim, quoted. The customer’s own sentence, verbatim, so nothing is lost in paraphrase.
  • Two buttons. “Reply with the evidence” and “Raise a credit note”, both of which open a draft rather than doing anything.
  • The documents, below the fold. Present, one tap away, and not the first thing on the screen.
  • The history line. “3rd quantity dispute from this customer this year; the previous two were both second-vehicle deliveries.” That sentence solves the underlying problem rather than this instance of it.

Next: what happens to the decision, and the report that turns fifteen disputes a month into a process change.

All posts