The Duplicate That Wasn't (Exactly)
A supplier invoices $48,000 for 12 monthly maintenance visits at $4,000 each, billed in arrears on a single annual invoice. Your three-way match rejects it: the PO is $48,000, but goods receipt records only 11 service confirmations because the December visit was logged against a separate blanket PO by mistake. The supplier's AP contact insists all 12 visits occurred and threatens to place your account on hold. The December visit was performed - you have a signed service log from your facilities manager. The invoice is due in 6 days, and the supplier's early-payment discount of 2% ($960) expires in 4 days. Your controller wants the hold released before month-end close in 5 days.
1. What should you do first, and why is simply overriding the match block the wrong move?
Read the worked answer
Diagnose before you clear. The block is a data problem, not a validity problem: the service was delivered, but the receipt sits on the wrong PO. Overriding the block would leave the receipt/invoice/PO relationship permanently misaligned, corrupting accrual accuracy and any spend analytics tied to the blanket PO.
Correct first step: Have the receiving function reverse or reallocate the December service confirmation from the blanket PO to the correct PO, so the three-way match passes on its own merits. Attach the signed service log as supporting evidence in the workflow.
Only if reallocation cannot happen before the discount deadline should you consider a documented, approved exception - with the receipt correction as a follow-up task. An override without fixing the underlying receipt is a recurring defect, not a one-time judgment call.
2. The discount expires before the receipt can be corrected. How do you weigh paying early against a clean match?
Read the worked answer
Quantify the trade. A 2% discount on $48,000 is $960. Compare that to the cost of the alternative: if you miss the discount, you pay $48,000; if you take it, $47,040. The question is whether a controlled exception can be processed in 4 days.
Decision framework:
- Is the liability real? Yes - 12 visits performed, service log signed. There is no payment risk of overpaying.
- Can the exception be approved at the right level? A documented exception with controller sign-off and the service log attached is defensible.
- Is the receipt correction scheduled? Yes - reallocate within the month so the PO/receipt/invoice records reconcile before close.
Conclusion: Take the discount via an approved exception, but log it as a control exception with an owner and a due date for the receipt fix. Do not let the exception become the normal path - track the exception rate; if it recurs, the blanket-PO process is the real defect to fix.
3. What control weakness does this situation expose, and what one change would you recommend?
Read the worked answer
Root cause: Receivers can post service confirmations against the wrong PO with no validation that the PO matches the invoice's terms, and the annual-billing-plus-monthly-receipt structure guarantees a mismatch at year-end.
Recommendation: Require the receiving team to confirm receipts against the PO number printed on the invoice (or in the supplier portal), and add a match-tolerance rule that flags annual invoices with fewer receipts than expected before the invoice routes to AP. Alternatively, restructure the contract to bill quarterly rather than annually, so receipts and invoices stay in step.
Why one change: The exam rewards identifying the controllable defect. The service was real; the process let a valid transaction fail a valid control. Fix the process, not the control.