Flagged is not recovered: follow the credit through.
Keep evidence, supplier responses and confirmed adjustments connected without counting every flagged amount as a saving.
Finding a discrepancy creates work to do. It does not establish that the supplier agrees, that an adjustment is due or that money has been recovered. A useful follow-up process preserves those distinctions all the way to resolution.
Track the amount flagged, the amount supported by review and the adjustment actually confirmed as separate facts.
Give each state a concrete meaning.
Start with language that tells the next person what has happened. “Needs review” means a difference has been identified. “Ready for follow-up” means someone has checked the evidence and prepared a question. “Awaiting response” means the question has actually been sent.
After the supplier responds, record the outcome: explained charge, disputed difference, promised adjustment or received correcting document. Choose the labels that fit your process, but define them clearly enough that two colleagues would classify the same case in the same way.
Swipe sideways to see the full table.
| State | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|
| Needs review | Invoice line and comparison source |
| Ready for follow-up | Checked explanation and named owner |
| Awaiting response | The query and date sent |
| Adjustment confirmed | Correcting document and internal verification |
Keep the amount attached to its explanation.
An amount without context is difficult to act on. Keep the supplier, invoice reference, site, line item and reason for the query together. Link the agreement or receiving evidence that supports it. Record partial adjustments without losing the original amount under discussion.
Suppose a fictional review flags €96, but a documented price revision explains €12. The amount still requiring follow-up is then €84. If a later credit covers only €60, the remaining €24 needs its own outcome. The stages tell the story more accurately than one headline total.
Assign the next action, not just the case.
A name in an owner column is useful only when the next action is clear. The buyer may need to confirm an agreement, the receiving team may need to locate a note, or finance may need to verify a credit document. Record that specific step and when it should be revisited.
If someone hands the case over, keep the previous exchange with it. Repeatedly asking for the same evidence creates more work for both sides and makes it harder to see whether the question has changed.
Measure the completed outcome honestly.
When reviewing the process, separate cases explained without an adjustment, cases still open and cases with confirmed correcting documents. If you track monetary outcomes, use a definition your team has agreed and check the evidence behind it. Avoid presenting the whole exception queue as recovered money.
Margevia follows that distinction in its sample workspace. The review button prepares a local follow-up state; it does not send a supplier message or record a real credit. That boundary is intentional: the interface should make the decision clearer without claiming an outcome that has not happened.
Try the idea with a sample invoice.
Explore the Margevia preview with fictional records and visible source evidence.
Explore the demo
