finnUse cases
Resolve an invoice mismatch with AI and a clear review.
Compare invoices, purchase orders, and delivery records with AI. Gather missing evidence, prepare a reviewed correction, and verify the final state.
A supplier invoice lists 120 units. The purchase order lists 100, and the receiving record shows two partial deliveries. The finance team needs to understand what happened before it can resolve the invoice. This illustrative Finn workflow organizes the evidence and review without assuming that any one document is automatically correct.
Find the exact records that belong together.
Identify the supplier, invoice number, currency, purchase order, line items, and relevant receiving records. Check for a duplicate invoice or an existing credit note before starting a new correction. Similar descriptions or totals are not enough to establish a match; preserve the identifiers and links that support it.
Keep document versions and amendments visible. A changed purchase order may explain a quantity difference, while an old receiving record may not include the latest delivery. If the records cannot be matched confidently, assign that uncertainty for review rather than comparing the wrong transactions.
Separate the kinds of discrepancy.
Compare quantity, unit price, currency, discounts, freight, taxes, and totals using the business’s approved rules. A difference may reflect a partial receipt, an agreed charge, a unit-of-measure mismatch, or an error. Group the issues so the reviewer can see what needs investigation. Recalculate arithmetic using the source values rather than relying only on a narrative explanation.
For the illustrative 120-unit invoice, first establish whether the two deliveries together account for the quantity and whether an amended order authorized it. Do not automatically reduce the invoice to 100 or treat the excess as accepted. The correct action depends on the complete records and the responsible person’s decision.
| Difference | Evidence to gather | Possible owner |
|---|---|---|
| Quantity | Order changes and receiving records | Purchasing and receiving |
| Unit price | Current agreement and approved offer | Procurement |
| Freight or other fees | Applicable terms and shipment details | Procurement or operations |
| Tax or currency | Invoice details and accounting policy | Finance specialist |
| Duplicate billing | Prior invoice, credits, and payment records | Accounts payable |
Ask for the missing fact once.
Prepare a focused request to the team or supplier who can resolve the uncertainty. Include the exact invoice and line, the discrepancy, and the evidence already available. Use an approved channel and avoid sharing unrelated financial information. Keep the request attached to the case so another employee can see that it is already in progress.
If a supplier response arrives later, match it to the existing case and recheck the current records. Someone may already have posted a credit or corrected the receipt. Continuity should reduce duplicated investigation while keeping current truth ahead of earlier assumptions.
Prepare a decision that shows its reasoning.
Present the compared values, supporting records, unresolved questions, and proposed next action. That action might be to request a corrected invoice, record a missing receipt, accept an authorized variance, or leave the invoice on hold. The authorized reviewer decides according to the company’s controls. Routine tolerances should be explicit rather than inferred from historical behavior.
OpenAI’s contract-data account illustrates source-backed document extraction with expert review. The applicable pattern is evidence prepared for judgment. Invoice matching adds its own accounting controls and does not turn a model’s suggested explanation into approval to alter a ledger or release payment.
Verify the approved change and the remaining work.
Execute only the permitted action associated with the reviewed proposal. Check that the correct record changed and retain the system’s confirmation. If the action times out, inspect its state before retrying. A correction request sent to a supplier is different from a corrected invoice received and recorded.
Keep payment release separate where the business’s process requires it. Resolving a mismatch does not necessarily make an invoice ready to pay: other holds or approvals may remain. Report the exact resulting status and the next owner instead of collapsing every stage into “resolved.”
Measure the review burden and the financial result.
Track the number of discrepancies by type, time awaiting evidence, reviewer effort, corrected proposals, reopened cases, and duplicate actions avoided or detected. Compare like-for-like invoice groups. A simple price difference and a disputed multi-delivery order create different levels of work.
Finn connects document preparation, employee conversations, business records, and follow-up Tasks so the investigation remains coherent. Test partial receipts, amended orders, duplicate invoices, currency differences, unavailable records, and a credit posted during review. Start with a clearly defined discrepancy type and expand as the team understands the results.
Common questions
What is three-way invoice matching?
It compares the supplier invoice, purchase order, and receipt record. The business still needs rules for partial receipts, amendments, permitted variances, and unresolved differences.
Can an AI agent release payment after matching an invoice?
Only if payment is explicitly within its delegated authority and every required control is satisfied. Matching and payment approval should remain separate when the business requires that separation.
How should the workflow handle missing receiving records?
Identify the missing evidence, assign the responsible receiving or operations team, and keep the case pending. Do not assume delivery from the invoice alone.