Investigate unidentified receipts and possible invoice matches

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Receipt copies

   Owner

   Receivables owner

   Minimum scope

   Three fictional receipts

   Quality check

   Retain amount, currency, date and receipt ID.

2. Name

   Candidate invoice ledger

   Owner

   Finance owner

   Minimum scope

   Open balances and prior applications

   Quality check

   Distinguish original value from remaining balance.

3. Name

   Remittance evidence

   Owner

   Operations owner

   Minimum scope

   Invented references and customer aliases

   Quality check

   Label unknown customer identity and disputes.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Use synthetic exports with no bank identifiers.

2. Keep proposed links separate from recorded applications.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: customer data scope, assistant duties, permission groups, configured receipt methods and release cohort.

External actions requiring approval

1. Real-data disclosure, persistent access, configuration changes and live record updates. Consequential accounting treatment stays with the qualified finance owner.

Why use this

1. Similar customer names and reused references make a plausible match different from an evidenced match. Partial history also changes the amount still available.

2. A review packet could preserve competing explanations until the authorized owner chooses what to do.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Connect messy remittance descriptions to stable IDs and explain ambiguous alternatives.

Simpler alternative

Use native exact-reference matching when customer and invoice identifiers are complete.

Unsuitable when

A transfer, refund, credit decision or unreviewed ledger update is requested.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Customer-linked receipt applications with confirmation evidence, unresolved matches and unapplied balances.

Critical checks

1. No receipt amount is allocated twice.

2. Competing same-amount invoices remain visible.

3. Verify the resulting application and remaining balance; an identity suggestion alone is not an application.

Missing output evidence

Unknown: no actual agent output or successful tenant run independently inspected.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Three invented receipts include an ambiguous customer, a partially applied payment and a remittance pointing to a disputed invoice.

Acceptance checks

1. Retain all receipts and competing candidates.

2. Reconcile available amounts without applying them.

3. Flag the dispute and absent identity evidence.

Stop conditions

1. Actual application, refund, customer update, bank access or financial advice is required.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   One amount fits two customers

   Why it matters

   Amount equality does not establish identity.

   Proposed response

   Require a stronger reference or hold both.

2. Signal

   A partial application is omitted

   Why it matters

   The remaining receipt balance can be overstated.

   Proposed response

   Rebuild the balance from supplied history.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Agree balance and reference fields.

Ongoing review

1. Review ambiguous identity and revised remittance evidence.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: licensing, metered usage, configuration effort and reviewer time.

Limits

1. This is a proposed reviewability check. It establishes no accounting treatment, compliance conclusion, commercial entitlement or execution success.