Dispute management software for AR: ask the agents, see the proof, approve the answer
Disputes settled on proof in days, and every credit checked against the contract.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Dispute management software for B2B accounts receivable teams. Eight agents read each customer dispute wherever it arrives, link it to the invoice line, gather the PO, contract, amendments and proof of delivery, propose who is right with an independent check against the contract, and draft the reply and any credit memo in the customer's terms. The AR specialist approves, edits or rejects with a reason, and credits above their limit go to the AR manager or the controller.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
A B2B customer writes "your invoice is wrong" and holds all of it. The proof that settles it sits in five places: the PO and price list in the ERP, the supply agreement and its latest amendment in the contract repository, the order acknowledgement, the carrier's proof of delivery, and whatever sales said in the CRM. The AR specialist logs a case with a reason code, asks sales ops, logistics and the customer for backup, and waits — often days for a POD or for sales to answer.
Meanwhile a $27,360 price question holds a $316,200 invoice unless someone asks for the undisputed balance. Under time pressure small credits are granted to make a dispute go away when the contract would have said no, and a manager signs the credit memo without the proof attached. The root-cause code is picked from a list at closing, if at all, so the same internal mistake produces next month's dispute.
Estimated split of the working days a typical price or delivery dispute takes inside AR, by hand and with the solution; the customer's own review time is not included.
Eight agents read, prove, decide, cross-check against the contract and draft; the AR specialist approves and managers sign credits.
Ashcombe Labs, a diagnostics laboratory group and a Kestrel & Vane Group customer, says invoice INV-20931 overbills 228,000 sterile sample tubes by $27,360. Here is how Ben Ortiz, AR specialist, works the case with the agents — asking them questions in plain words, opening every source they cite, and approving the answer — screen by screen in the working solution.
Ben's home screen says the agents worked his 24 open disputes overnight and read 6 new ones: 10 need him ($71,422 disputed), $244,790 is in dispute, 4 answers are due this week and 9 were resolved this week for $30,470. The Needs you list is in the order the agents suggest — answer date, then amount — and beside it the report writer's morning brief, every line with its source.
“Biggest today: Ashcombe Labs, $27,360 on price. The invoice is right: their PO missed Amendment No. 3.”
Under the brief is an ask box: "Ask about any dispute, customer or credit". Ben asks what is due this week. The report writer answers in the thread: four answers are due by Friday — Oxenford Health today, with Marta Kowal; Sable Ridge Mining and Orrin Medical Group on 16 Oct, both waiting for sales; and Quintrell Hotels on 16 Oct, whose reply is ready for him. One is past due: Stanmore Rail Services, with Grace Achebe since 8 Oct.
Suggested questions sit under the box: “What is due this week?” · “Which credits need Marta?” · “Why so many price disputes?”
Six arrivals since 17:00 yesterday — from email, a customer's supplier portal, Kestrel & Vane's own dispute form, a call note from Ines Moreau in customer service and a short payment from cash application. Juniper Row Labs' email is linked to INV-21004 line 2 at 0.95 confidence, $1,140 disputed, and the classifier proposes Short delivery, owner Ben Ortiz, answer within 10 business days, reminders paused on $1,140 only. A duplicate and a "not a dispute" are flagged; one short payment is marked "Check the reading".
“Your call — nothing is opened until you accept.”
Rhea Talbot, AP lead at Ashcombe, writes that INV-20931 bills the KV-ST10 tubes at $1.37 while PO 4500-77812 says $1.25, and that Ashcombe is holding the invoice. Two minutes later the intake reader has linked it to line 1 and paused reminders on the $27,360 only — the undisputed $288,840 stays due on 18 Oct. The classifier calls it a price dispute, owner Ben, answer by 21 Oct, and an acknowledgement goes to Rhea under rule R-01. At 09:24 the decision agent, at 0.96, says the invoice is right: Amendment No. 3 sets $1.37 for deliveries shipped from 1 Sep, the order shipped on 16 Sep, and Ashcombe did not object to the acknowledgement at $1.37 within 5 business days.
Every agent message shows its confidence and numbered citations to what it read. Credit owed $0; $316,200 to collect by 18 Oct.
The proof gatherer pulls 8 items from the ERP, the contract repository, the carrier and the mailbox: the customer PO at $1.25 (their claim), supply agreement SA-2291, Amendment No. 3, order acknowledgement SO-118402, Northgate Freight's proof of delivery, the ERP price list, earlier invoices and a CRM note. Ben opens Amendment No. 3: signed 1 Aug 2026 by Owen Marsh of Ashcombe, it applies to all deliveries shipped on or after 1 September 2026, whatever the date of the purchase order.
“Kept with the case · highlighted text is what the agent used.”
The contract checker, working on its own at 0.97, agrees: the price follows the ship date, not the PO date; notice was 31 days against the 30 required by §4.5; and 950 cases × 240 = 228,000 tubes. It flags one thing for a person — a CRM note that Owen Marsh asked on 20 Aug whether $1.25 could hold until Q4. Ben clicks "Ask Callum Reyes", and Callum answers in the thread. The checker's last line now reads that Callum confirmed no price hold was agreed.
“No — I checked with Hana and we did not agree a price hold. Owen knows. Go ahead, and copy me.”
The drafter has written to Rhea, copying Owen Marsh and Callum, using their PO number and portal reference. It attaches Amendment No. 3 and the order acknowledgement, asks Ashcombe to release the invoice for payment of $316,200 by its due date, 18 October, and prepares the same answer for Ashcombe's supplier portal, where the invoice shows "On hold". Ben can edit it in place or tell the agents in plain words — "Make the reply softer", "Copy Marta Kowal". Below it, the root-cause analyst has found four open Ashcombe POs that still say $1.25 — 516,000 tubes, $61,920 at risk of the same dispute — drafted a heads-up to Owen Marsh, and added the case to root cause RC-1, "price changes not reaching customer POs".
The drafter drafts only. Nothing is sent until Ben approves.
Ben types "What if a price hold was agreed?" into the case. The contract checker answers at 0.95, with two citations: a price hold agreed in writing would override the amendment for the orders it covered, and the $27,360 would become a credit — above his limit, so Marta Kowal would sign it. Nothing in writing exists: the CRM note only says Owen asked, and Callum confirmed no hold was agreed.
Anything that changes an amount, a credit or what is sent still comes back to Ben first.
Ben clicks Approve and send. The dialog states exactly what goes out — the reply to Rhea, cc Owen Marsh and Callum Reyes, with the amendment and the acknowledgement, posted on Ashcombe's supplier portal, no credit — and asks for a reason: "Invoice correct — contract price applies". A note for the record is optional. No credit is involved, so it is within his authority; a credit above $10,000 would go to Marta Kowal instead.
“Signed as Ben Ortiz · Wed 14 Oct 2026 · kept in the audit trail.”
The thread records the reply sent to Rhea Talbot with Owen Marsh and Callum Reyes copied, the answer posted on Ashcombe's supplier portal with 2 attachments, and the heads-up on the four POs sent to Owen. The case reads "Answered · waiting for Ashcombe", and the proof gatherer will read Ashcombe's portal and the bank receipts on Fri 16 Oct, their next payment run.
“Reply sent and posted on their portal. The Proof gatherer checks their payment run on Fri 16 Oct.”
The same dispute, seen by the four people who carry it — what their month looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents read, prove, decide, cross-check against the contract and draft; the AR specialist approves and managers sign credits.
Reads every dispute wherever it arrives — email, customer AP portals, the dispute form, call notes, short payments — links it to the invoice line, computes the disputed amount, pauses reminders on that amount only and acknowledges under rule R-01.
Sets the reason code, the owner and the answer date from the reason codes and answer times.
Plans the proof each reason needs and gathers it: PO, contract and amendments, price list, acknowledgement, proof of delivery, photos, earlier invoices, CRM notes.
Weighs the proof item by item against the disputed line and proposes who is right and by how much.
A second, independent opinion: checks the decision against the contract — effective dates, notice, tolerances, price protection — and can disagree.
Drafts the reply in the customer's terms, the credit memo when one is owed, and the post for the customer's portal, with the proof attached.
Traces each case to the step where it started, finds the same cause in open orders and invoices, and proposes the fix to the owning team.
Writes the morning brief and the monthly report in plain words, every number cited.
Approve replies; sign credits by limit. The agents propose; a named person decides.
There is an ask box on the morning brief, in every case, on each new dispute and under every credit memo. Ask in plain words, or tell the agents what to change. They answer with sources and act on your word — and anything that changes an amount, a credit or what is sent still comes back to you.
Why is the Ashcombe Labs invoice right?
Amendment No. 3, signed by Ashcombe's Owen Marsh on 1 August, sets $1.37 per tube for deliveries shipped from 1 September. INV-20931 shipped on 16 September, and our acknowledgement at $1.37 was not objected to. Their PO kept the old $1.25.
What if a price hold was agreed?
If a price hold had been agreed in writing, it would override the amendment for the orders it covered, and the $27,360 would be a credit — above your limit, so Marta Kowal would sign it. Nothing in writing exists: the CRM note only says Owen asked, and Callum confirmed no hold was agreed.
What is due this week?
Four answers are due by Friday: Oxenford Health today (with Marta Kowal), Sable Ridge Mining and Orrin Medical Group on 16 Oct (both waiting for sales), and Quintrell Hotels on 16 Oct — its reply is ready for you. One is past due: Stanmore Rail Services, with Grace Achebe since 8 Oct.
Approve every customer-right credit within my limit
I can't approve credits — you sign them. Six are ready and within your $10,000 limit, $23,640 in all, each with its proof and the contract check. Halden's $10,830 is not among them: it goes to Marta.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Approval limits, reason codes and the rules the agents follow are settings. Every change is a proposal the AR manager approves, and two rules cannot be turned off.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Credit approval limits | AR specialist to $10,000 · AR manager to $50,000 · controller above | Any amounts, proposed from your delegation of authority |
| Any credit on a paid invoice or a closed period | Goes to the AR manager, whatever the amount | On · off |
| Write-off of a disputed balance (no credit memo) | AR manager, up to $2,500 | Any amount |
| Answer times by reason code | Price 10 · Damaged goods 15 · Duplicate billing 5 · Discount 5 days | Days per reason code, with its owner and the proof the agents gather |
| R-01 · Acknowledge every new dispute | Within 1 business day, with the answer date | On · off — approved text, version 4 |
| Below 0.85 confidence the agents do not propose | On — they ask a person | On · off |
| Tell sales before a credit above $5,000 is approved | On | On · off |
| Second-agent contract check · never send or post without approval | On | Cannot be turned off |
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 (Vertex survey of 300 AR professionals, 2020 — 39% say disputes cause over a quarter of their late payments; Atradius 2025 — B2B disputes take 30–60 days to resolve in North America). People, companies, invoices and portals named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Dispute management software for B2B accounts receivable teams. Eight agents read each customer dispute wherever it arrives, link it to the invoice line, gather the PO, contract, amendments and proof of delivery, propose who is right with an independent check against the contract, and draft the reply and any credit memo in the customer's terms. The AR specialist approves, edits or rejects with a reason, and credits above their limit go to the AR manager or the controller.
The proof gatherer plans the proof each reason code needs — for a price dispute the customer PO, the contract and amendments, the ERP price list and the order acknowledgement — and reads it, read-only, from the ERP, contract repository, carrier portals, CRM and mailbox. Each item is marked for the invoice, for the customer, context or missing, and opens its source passage. A source it cannot read is reported, never guessed.
No. The intake reader pauses reminders on the disputed amount only, and the reply asks for the undisputed balance on its due date. In the working solution's example, $27,360 of a $316,200 invoice was in dispute and $288,840 stayed due on schedule.
When the customer is right, the drafter prepares the credit memo with the proof and the contract check. Credits are routed by approval limits — up to $10,000 by the AR specialist, up to $50,000 by the AR manager and above that by the controller, as set in your settings. The requester never approves their own credit, and the ERP posts it only after signing.
No. The decision agent proposes, only with cited proof, and asks a person below 0.85 confidence. A second agent checks every decision against the contract without seeing the first one's reasoning, and any disagreement goes to a person. The agents never send a reply, post a credit or change an invoice.
Yes. The root-cause analyst traces each case to the step where it started — a price change that never reached the customer's PO, a short shipment invoiced at the ordered quantity, delivery terms wrong in master data — and searches open orders for the same cause. It proposes the fix to the owning team, who decide.
Yes. The AR specialist approves, edits or rejects every proposed resolution with a reason, and nothing is sent until they do. Credits are signed by the person whose limit covers them, settings changes are proposals the AR manager approves, and every step is on the audit trail with an evidence pack per case.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your reason codes, approval limits, contracts and a sample of past disputes — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. First-time setup connects the ERP, contracts, carriers, CRM, mailbox and portals, and the agents re-decide 50 of last month's closed disputes so your team can compare.
Every payment posted the day it lands, with each short pay sent to deductions on proof.
1-min demoDeduction ManagementEvery short-pay weighed on its proof: invalid dollars disputed, valid ones cleared fast.
1-min demoCollections ManagementCollector time aimed at the cash ready to move; every promise checked before it breaks.
1-min demoWe'll run Invoice Dispute Management on a sample of your own closed disputes, contracts and credit memos.