How to investigate a short-paid retailer or distributor invoice

An invoice for $8,400 produces a $6,600 payment. The $1,800 difference tells you how much needs explaining. It does not tell you whether the customer made an error. Your first job is to connect the payment to its remittance, split the adjustments into individual claims, and identify what would make each charge correct.

A short payment can reflect agreed deductions. UNFI's published terms, for example, provide for payment net of applicable deductions, chargebacks, and fees. They also state that a mutually executed supplier agreement prevails where it conflicts with those terms. Start with the agreement and policies governing your account and transaction, rather than assuming every withheld dollar is recoverable. [1]

The workflow below is a practical investigation method for a CPG brand. The household-products example is entirely fictional; it is not a customer result or a description of any named distributor's fees.

Save the invoice, remittance advice, payment reference, and available deduction backup together. A bank deposit alone is insufficient for assigning adjustments. If the remittance covers several invoices or includes older credits, reconcile the whole payment first. Do not force the deposit to match the nearest invoice amount.

In our fictional example, a brand invoices a distributor $8,400 for household cleaning products. The remittance explicitly applies $6,600 to that invoice after two deductions. There are no other credits, discounts, taxes, or adjustments in this simplified illustration.

The bridge balances, but neither deduction is validated yet. Record two investigation lines, not one $1,800 promotional expense. Preserve the original deduction references so later correspondence and repayments can be connected to the right line.

Copy the customer's deduction code and description exactly. Add a separate working category for your team. A category is a routing aid: it identifies the records and colleague needed next. It is not a verdict on validity. Keep an unfamiliar code as unknown while you obtain its definition and supporting detail.

For each line, record customer and account, deduction reference, deducted amount, invoice or payment link, category, owner, evidence location, and next action. Keep the category and decision in different fields. A promotion can be disputed; an unfamiliar service fee can turn out to be valid.

Use three questions: Was this charge authorized? Did the qualifying activity occur? Is the calculation correct? Write the answer beside the document that supports it. A matching dollar amount is a useful clue, but another promotion or shipment could produce the same total.

In the example, the signed promotion agreement allows $1,200 of fixed support for an August 1–14 event covering dish soap and surface cleaner. The claim backup identifies those same products, account, and activity dates and documents that the agreed event ran. The claim is billed August 28, after the event. The original invoice and credit history show that this allowance was not already granted. On those fictional facts, the promotion deduction is supported.

Keep the date of the underlying product activity separate from the date a claim was created or deducted. For a promotion, the governing activity might be orders, shipments, receipts, or consumer sales; use the basis in the agreement. A later claim date does not by itself prove that the product activity fell outside the offer. Check any separate claim-timing requirement as its own condition.

Check cases versus individual units, product identifiers, pack changes, locations, percentage bases, caps, and rounding. Search prior remittances and issued credits before calling a claim duplicate. Two charges with the same amount are not sufficient proof; compare the underlying transaction, period, products, and allowance.

Evidence requirements are specific to the account and claim. Kroger's published manufacturing claims guide, for example, lists an invoice and signed plant proof of delivery for unit shortages, and different support for cost differences. That is a manufacturing-program example, not a universal retailer checklist. [2]

Use explicit decisions: supported, potentially disputable, awaiting evidence, or partially supported. For a partial match, split the dollars into supported and questioned portions. Avoid turning incomplete research into either a write-off or an unsupported demand for repayment.

The example's $600 fee remains awaiting evidence until the distributor supplies its basis. Suppose the backup then identifies an event fee, and the brand finds an earlier $600 deduction for the same event. The agreement allows only one fee, and the earlier charge has not been reversed. Those additional fictional facts support a duplicate-charge dispute for $600. Without them, the correct action was to request documentation.

Before submission, verify the current route, required attachments, and deadline for your account and deduction type. Record both the deadline and the event from which it is measured. Do not borrow a deadline from another retailer or assume that requesting backup pauses the clock.

For UNFI Natural suppliers, the documented route uses the Dispute Center through myUNFI to review deductions, submit disputes, and track progress. Confirm your program before applying that route elsewhere. Kroger's manufacturing guide also distinguishes questions on invoices from submitted claims: a question does not replace a claim. [2][3]

Make the case easy to check. State the deduction reference, questioned amount, reason, and requested correction. For the fictional fee, attach the one-time event agreement, both deduction records, and a short comparison identifying the same event. Explain why the earlier charge satisfies the obligation. Keep the supported $1,200 promotion outside that request.

Save the submitted package, submission confirmation, case number, response, owner, and next follow-up. Track requested, approved, and received amounts separately. If a correction appears on a later remittance, connect it to the original claim and confirm its payment effect before marking cash recovered.

At the example's investigation stage, $1,200 is explained and accepted, $600 is disputed, and cash received remains $6,600. Matching the promotion has recovered no cash. A later $600 repayment would raise total receipts to $7,200; a dispute submission or approval alone would not. Close the investigation with a documented decision for every dollar and a clear owner for anything still open.