Deduction management software where agents weigh every short-pay on its proof, and the analyst signs the split
Every short-pay weighed on its proof: invalid dollars disputed, valid ones cleared fast.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that takes a customer short-pay from the remittance to a decision: researching why the customer deducted, deciding how much is valid, clearing the valid part and disputing the rest. Deduction Management adds eight agents that read the remittances and portals, gather the proof for and against, split the dollars, challenge their own verdict and draft the dispute in the customer's format, while the deductions analyst signs every decision.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Retailers and distributors pay less than the invoice and explain later, if at all: a promotion allowance, a shortage, a price difference, a compliance fine, damaged goods. Every customer has its own portal, deduction codes, fields and clock. Each short-pay is a small investigation across the promotion agreement, the accrual, scan and store data, proofs of delivery, bills of lading and price files, and most deductions teams cannot research them all.
The amount is usually partly valid, which a valid-or-invalid flag cannot express: a scan promotion settled on units bought instead of units scanned, a bill-back without proof of performance, a chargeback on an expired price list. Deductions under a hundred dollars cost more to work than they are worth, so they are written off blind. Trade promotions are variable consideration under ASC 606, so an invalid deduction left alone is revenue given away and a valid one left uncleared distorts the accrual and the close. And nobody fixes the cause: the same clause, the same late price-master update, the same pallet label fails every month.
Estimated split for one partly valid scan-promotion deduction, researched by hand and with the solution. Hours, not days.
Eight agents read, research, weigh and challenge every short-pay and draft the dispute; the analyst signs and files.
Greenhollow Markets pays invoice INV-7740213 for $61,512.00 with $46,632.00 by ACH: $14,880.00 short, code PR77, promotion allowance. Here is how the analyst and the agents work it together, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Kofi works Greenhollow and Northvale for Kestrel & Vane's consumer-brands business. Thirty deductions wait for his decision, each already researched. The first sits on a balance: proof it is valid in the green pan, proof it is invalid in the red one, and at the fulcrum the agents' verdict — Split, $9,640.00 valid, $5,240.00 invalid, confidence 94% — with the challenger's result beneath it. Every evidence row opens the document it came from.
On screen: “Nothing is filed or cleared until you sign. Expected recovery $3,682 after the $38 cost to dispute.”
The intake reader read ACH remittance RA-0917733 and mapped Greenhollow's code PR77 to a scan promotion. The promotion researcher found promotion 77-QX: $0.40 per unit scanned, 7 Sep – 4 Oct, accrual $10,000.00 on a 25,000-unit forecast. The proof gatherer pulled Greenhollow's own scan report (24,100 units), syndicated store data (24,032 units) and our shipments in the window: 37,200 units × $0.40 = $14,880.00, exactly the deduction.
Research trace: “Challenger · tried four other explanations” — “Overlapping promotion 77-QY (settled in August), scans after 4 Oct (none), a duplicate claim (none), the second scan source (agrees): the split stands.”
Weeks 37 to 40 show units shipped against units scanned. Greenhollow claimed on 37,200 units shipped; the agreement pays on 24,100 scanned. Valid: 24,100 × $0.40 = $9,640.00. Invalid: 13,100 × $0.40 = $5,240.00. The second scan source would make the valid amount $27.20 lower, so the verdict uses Greenhollow's own figure, as the agreement says.
“Clause 3 pays on units scanned. Greenhollow's claim equals units shipped × $0.40 to the cent, which is how the agents found the cause.”
The challenger re-weighs every verdict without seeing the first agent's reasoning. On a Summit Club Warehouse price difference of $11,385.00, the verdict agent called it all invalid on the 1 Sep price file. The challenger found §4.2 of the buying agreement — 90 days' written notice — so the 2,310 cases shipped 1–28 Sep keep the old price: $6,352.50 valid. Confidence 72%. The analyst sees both verdicts side by side and chooses one with a reason code.
On screen: “Two verdicts · Agents disagree” — the button reads “Decide between the verdicts”.
Kofi asks Dana before her customer is disputed; the packet waits for her reply, due in one business day. The question appears on her own view, raised by the packet writer: “Did you agree with Greenhollow, in writing or by phone, to pay promotion 77-QX on units shipped rather than units scanned?” She can answer, ask Kofi to call her, or get a cited brief for Thursday's buyer meeting.
Dana's answer: “No. We agreed scanned units only, as clause 3 says. Their buyer has the signed copy.”
The sign window shows what he is signing: $9,640.00 cleared against the promotion 77-QX accrual, and $5,240.00 for the packet writer to dispute in Greenhollow Supplier Hub's format. It is within his limit — analysts clear valid deductions up to $25,000 and approve disputes of any size. He picks DV-01, “Verdict accepted as researched”. Had he disagreed, he could change the split himself, with a reason, and the challenger re-checks it.
$9,640.00 clears against the 77-QX accrual, leaving $360.00 to release. The packet writer drafts the Greenhollow Supplier Hub claim for $5,240.00 under code PR77, with agreement clause 3, the scan report and the shipment record attached (3 files, 2.4 MB), and checks it against Greenhollow's rejection reasons: 6 of 6 pass.
“Waiting for your approval to file · Nothing goes to the customer until you approve it on the packet.”
The packet fills Greenhollow Supplier Hub's fields: their reference GH-DM-0938817, deduction code, amount, a 332-character reason and three PDFs, each under the 10 MB limit. The checks come from 1,906 past answers: right deduction code, inside the 90-day window, agreement and scan report attached, amount ties to the remittance, no earlier claim. Kofi can edit the reason, which re-runs the checks, or return it to the analyst with a reason code.
Reason, as drafted: “We accept $9,640.00 and ask for repayment of $5,240.00.”
Kofi confirms: the agents sign in with the service account, fill the fields, attach the 3 files and submit, with Dana copied on the confirmation. Greenhollow Supplier Hub returns claim GHC-2610-55731, nearly three months before the 7 Jan 2027 filing deadline. From here the recovery tracker reads the claim's status every 30 minutes and drafts any query answer before its clock runs out.
“Filed with Greenhollow Supplier Hub · claim GHC-2610-55731 · approved by Kofi Mensah at 09:35.”
Over twelve months, $18.19M of $111.6M deducted was invalid: 16%. The root-cause reporter links Kofi's deduction to a pattern — 31 scan-promotion deductions, $212,480, at Greenhollow and Coastline, all settled on units shipped — and proposes a fix to Isabel Ferreira in trade marketing: a clause that pays “on the retailer's scan report only”, with the report attached to every claim.
The root-cause reporter never changes terms, prices or settings itself: it sends the proposal to a named owner.
The same short-pay, seen by the five people it touches — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents read, research, weigh and challenge every short-pay and draft the dispute; the analyst signs and files.
Reads remittances (ACH, lockbox, EDI 820), debit memos (EDI 812), portal files and backup emails. Opens one deduction per short-pay, maps the customer's code to ours and links the invoice.
Finds the agreement or terms behind each deduction: rate, period, items, the proof required and the accrual.
Pulls the proof both ways: scan reports, store data, proofs of delivery, bills of lading, receiving records, display photos, price files and appointment logs.
Weighs the proof line by line and puts the valid and invalid amounts on the scales, with its confidence. Clears valid deductions by rule R-03.
A second, independent agent. Re-weighs each verdict and tries other explanations: overlapping promotions, late scans, duplicates, notice periods. When it disagrees, a person decides.
Drafts each dispute in the customer's own format and fields, attaches the backup, and checks it against the reasons that customer has rejected packets before.
Reads each filed dispute's status every 30 minutes, drafts answers to customer queries before their clock runs out, and matches repayments on remittances.
Every Monday, groups twelve months of deductions by reason and customer, prices the preventable causes and proposes a fix with an owner.
Signs every verdict and filing. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any deduction, customer or promotion, or say what to chase. Every figure is cited, and anything that files, clears or writes off waits for a person to sign.
Why is $5,240 of the Greenhollow deduction invalid?
Greenhollow paid itself on units shipped, not units scanned. Promotion 77-QX pays $0.40 a unit scanned from 7 Sep to 4 Oct. Their own scan report shows 24,100 units, so $9,640.00 is valid. They deducted $14,880.00, which is exactly the 37,200 units we shipped them × $0.40. The challenger tried four other explanations and agrees.
Which deductions should we write off instead of disputing?
Those that cost more to dispute than they would return. At $38 to dispute and each customer's win rate, the agents advise writing off 14 Coastline short-pays under $60 ($482.70, expected recovery $265.49) and 2 Harlow & Finch bill-backs past the 120-day window ($1,318.00). Pinecrest's 6 lines ($2,940.15) are our own price-master error. All of them wait for Marcus Lindqvist.
What are invalid deductions costing us, and why?
$18.19M of $111.6M deducted in the last 12 months was invalid: 16%. The biggest preventable cause is scan promotions settled on units shipped: 31 deductions, $212,480, at Greenhollow and Coastline. Next are off-invoice allowances loaded late into our price master ($96,210, our error) and price rises sent with short notice to Summit Club ($64,320).
Answer every customer query due this week
Sent 3 answers, each drafted from the evidence already on file: two Brightway queries (the trailer seal photo, 2 days left; ship method and freight, 4 days left) and Summit Club's request for the price file (6 days left). Greenhollow and Harlow & Finch are not due until next week, so they are left for you. Every answer is on the record.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The rules the agents work to are settings. Every change is saved as a new version for the divisional controller to approve; the current version stays live until she does.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| R-01 · Research every deduction as soon as it is read | Within 1 business day | On or off |
| R-02 · A second agent challenges every verdict before a person sees it | Required by group policy FIN-7.3 | Cannot be turned off |
| R-03 · Clear valid deductions by rule when they match an accrual | Up to $25,000 at 84% confidence | Amount and confidence are editable · on or off |
| R-04 · Advise write-off when the expected recovery is below the cost to dispute | Cost to dispute $38.00 | Cost to dispute is editable · on or off |
| R-05 · Hold the packet while the account manager is asked | Reply due in 1 business day | On or off |
| R-06 · Ask the customer for backup on unexplained short-pays | After 2 business days, at most twice | Days are editable · on or off |
| R-07 · Batch compliance fines under $500 into one packet a customer a week | Fridays · off in the demo | On or off |
| Write-off limits | Analyst $250 · AR manager $10,000 · controller above | Analyst and AR manager limits are editable |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Credit Research Foundation benchmarking — about $97 to work one deduction, 2012, via Clarkston Consulting; median 38 days deductions outstanding, 2015; a published vendor study — 10–25% of deductions invalid or preventable). People, companies, customers, promotions and documents named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that takes a customer short-pay from the remittance to a decision: researching why the customer deducted, deciding how much is valid, clearing the valid part and disputing the rest. Deduction Management adds eight agents that read the remittances and portals, gather the proof for and against, split the dollars, challenge their own verdict and draft the dispute in the customer's format, while the deductions analyst signs every decision.
The promotion researcher finds the terms, the proof gatherer pulls the evidence both ways — scan reports, store data, proofs of delivery, price files — and the verdict agent weighs it line by line into valid and invalid dollars with a confidence. A second agent, the challenger, re-weighs it independently and tries other explanations. Every figure opens the document it came from.
That is the normal case, and it is shown as a split, not a flag. One signature clears the valid part against the promotion accrual and sends the invalid part to the packet writer to dispute. In the demo, $9,640.00 of a $14,880.00 deduction cleared and $5,240.00 was disputed.
The packet writer drafts each dispute in that customer's own fields, limits and format, attaches the backup, and checks it against the reasons that customer has rejected packets before. Nothing is filed until the analyst approves; the agents then submit it and the recovery tracker follows its status and the customer's query clocks.
It advises, and a person decides. For every invalid dollar the agents compare the expected recovery, from that customer's win rate, with the cost to dispute, and advise dispute or write-off. Each write-off goes to the approver its amount needs, with a reason code.
Yes. The agents research, weigh and draft; the analyst signs every verdict and approves every filing, can change the split or return a packet, and the AR manager, trade marketing and the controller approve above their limits. Nobody approves their own request, and every action is on the audit trail.
Yes. Every Monday the root-cause reporter groups twelve months of deductions by reason and customer, prices the preventable causes and sends a proposed fix to a named owner in trade marketing, pricing, logistics or sales. Trade marketing also sees every claim settled against each promotion's accrual.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your deduction policy, customer portal guides, agreements and a sample of past deductions — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. Each customer is added in six guided steps, including a trial run on its last 90 days of deductions before it goes live.
Every payment posted the day it lands, with each short pay sent to deductions on proof.
1-min demoCollections ManagementCollector time aimed at the cash ready to move; every promise checked before it breaks.
1-min demoRetail Chargeback ManagementEvery wrong fine disputed in its window, and every carrier-caused fine recharged.
1-min demoWe'll run Deduction Management on a sample of your own past short-pays and remittances.