Reconcile supplier stock reports into inventory

Why use this

1. A supplier stock report may use pack quantities, alternate product codes and a reporting date that differs from the inventory system’s last update. Copying the numbers accurately is not enough if they describe a different unit or overwrite a newer count.

2. This job could prepare a stock-update preview with exceptions before database writes. The inventory owner could review confident matches and supplier questions before extracted values enter the operational record.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Interpret varied PDF tables and reconcile supplier identifiers with a defined inventory mapping.

Simpler alternative

Use a structured supplier CSV import when formats and product IDs are stable.

Unsuitable when

Supplier availability is being treated as owned stock without an agreed inventory model.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Supplier report

   Owner

   Purchasing owner

   Minimum scope

   Authorized PDF, sender context, reporting date and relevant product rows

   Quality check

   Check page completeness and distinguish available, reserved and incoming quantities.

2. Name

   Inventory snapshot and mappings

   Owner

   Inventory owner

   Minimum scope

   Target record IDs, supplier aliases, units and last-update times

   Quality check

   Confirm the target field’s meaning and define variance thresholds.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read the selected report and inventory snapshot; produce a before-and-after preview with scoped write targets.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: PDF extraction quality, Gmail access, Airtable schema and update permissions.

External actions requiring approval

1. Writing inventory values, changing product mappings or contacting the supplier.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Stock-change preview with source row, matched record, unit conversion, proposed quantity and variance reason.

Critical checks

1. Every quantity is associated with the correct unit and reporting date.

2. Unmatched or ambiguous items are held rather than forced into the closest product name.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   The PDF reports cases while the inventory field expects individual units.

   Why it matters

   A direct copy can materially understate or overstate availability.

   Proposed response

   Apply only an approved pack conversion and flag missing conversion data.

2. Signal

   The supplier report predates a newer manual inventory adjustment.

   Why it matters

   An import could undo the owner’s latest knowledge.

   Proposed response

   Compare timestamps and hold conflicting rows for review instead of overwriting.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define product aliases, quantity semantics and variance rules.

Ongoing review

1. Review exceptions and reconcile partial writes against the approved preview.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: connector costs, report consistency and ongoing mapping effort.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A synthetic supplier PDF lists one case-based item, one unknown product code and one stale quantity.

Acceptance checks

1. The case conversion is explicit.

2. Unknown and stale rows remain pending with separate reasons.

Stop conditions

1. A database write or unapproved unit assumption is required.

Limits

1. Access permission does not resolve quantity semantics; an inventory preview needs explicit unit and recency review.