Invoice and Procurement Document Review: A Worked Example

An invoice can agree with a purchase order and still disagree with the quantity received. In procurement example CASE-104, the invoice and order list 120 docking stations, while the delivery note records 112. The eight-unit gap needs investigation before the workflow proceeds. Matching payment terms do not resolve a quantity conflict.

This expands the synthetic example on our document intelligence page. The data and record were authored for illustration. They are not a model run, a live processing result or a customer outcome. This page accepts no uploads and runs no processing service. The downloadable JSON contains the exercise and its expected record; the source document files themselves are not supplied.

The four input sources

Keep each source's observations separate before comparing them. Every source has an ID and a location to attach to the fields taken from it. The table identifies a page, row or clause in each illustrative document.

First establish that the sources belong to the same case and describe the same item and unit of measure. The exercise supplies that relationship. A real workflow needs a defined check for it; similar document names alone do not establish that records belong together.

The expected record preserves the disagreement

The record below separates invoiced, ordered and delivered quantities. Every field has source_refs pointing to the IDs in the table and download. The quantity check records a difference of eight units and the status human_review_required. The payment terms check is matched, while the overall case remains subject to human review.

The source references let a reviewer trace a field back to an illustrative page, row or clause. The combined record keeps the observations together while preserving the evidence needed to check each one.

{
  "case_id": "CASE-104",
  "status": "human_review_required",
  "fields": {
    "item": {
      "value": "docking_station",
      "source_refs": [
        "invoice",
        "order",
        "delivery",
        "contract"
      ]
    },
    "invoiced_quantity": {
      "value": 120,
      "source_refs": [
        "invoice"
      ]
    },
    "ordered_quantity": {
      "value": 120,
      "source_refs": [
        "order"
      ]
    },
    "delivered_quantity": {
      "value": 112,
      "source_refs": [
        "delivery"
      ]
    },
    "payment_terms_days": {
      "value": 30,
      "source_refs": [
        "invoice",
        "contract"
      ]
    }
  },
  "checks": [
    {
      "id": "quantity_reconciliation",
      "expected_quantity": 120,
      "observed_quantity": 112,
      "difference_units": 8,
      "status": "human_review_required",
      "source_refs": [
        "invoice",
        "order",
        "delivery"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "payment_terms",
      "value_days": 30,
      "status": "matched",
      "source_refs": [
        "invoice",
        "contract"
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Download the CASE-104 JSON example. It includes illustrative: true, review status, sources, review rules and a checklist. It contains no personal information or monetary amounts.

Three conditions that require review

• Missing information: leave an unsupported field empty and identify what is needed. Do not fill it with a plausible value.
• Unclear information: preserve the reference and request a readable copy or clarification when a value cannot be read or interpreted.
• Conflicting information: retain both observations and their sources. Do not replace 112 with 120 merely to make the record agree.

A quantity discrepancy does not establish its cause. Further information may be needed, but this example supplies no evidence explaining the gap. The record's purpose is to bring the conflict and its evidence to the person responsible for investigating it, without promoting a hypothesis into a fact.

A reviewer checklist

1. Confirm that all sources belong to CASE-104 and refer to docking stations.
2. Check quantities and units against invoice page 1, purchase order row 8 and delivery note page 1.
3. Compare the payment terms on the invoice with clauses 2 to 3 of the supplier contract.
4. Investigate the eight-unit gap with the procurement or receiving team and obtain evidence supporting its resolution.
5. Record the review decision, supporting evidence and responsibility for the next step in the organization's workflow.
6. Keep the case under review until the discrepancy is resolved. A matched field does not approve the whole case.

Using the exercise to scope a real workflow

The exercise defines inputs, expected fields and a clear boundary before further action. A real implementation also needs to define who reviews, how corrections are made and what allows the process to proceed. Use the JSON as a requirements discussion aid alongside representative documents that can be shared within the engagement.

For broader context, read about AI solutions for business and the cost components of an AI solution. When scoping the workflow, connect the evidence retained, the person responsible for reviewing it and the action that can proceed after review.