AI agents for investigating invoice discrepancies

What happened to the remaining cartons?

Suppose a company orders ten cartons and receives an invoice for ten. The ERP contains a receipt for six. An email from the supplier includes a document describing a second delivery of four cartons, but the warehouse has not confirmed that delivery in the ERP.

The AP employee sees a difference of four cartons. Without the additional document, they have to ask about the delivery as a whole, wait for an answer, and then continue searching. An agent can locate the supplier’s email and put it alongside the invoice and receipt, showing that the next question concerns the second shipment. The employee checks that it belongs to the same purchase order and has a specific issue to take to the warehouse.

A draft question based on this example could read:

The invoice and purchase order cover ten cartons, but I can see a receipt for six in the ERP. The supplier’s email includes a document for a second delivery of four cartons. Did the warehouse receive that shipment? If so, please point me to its receipt in the system or explain why it is not showing yet.

Links to the receipt and the email give the warehouse employee something specific to investigate. They can check the shipment without guessing which delivery AP means. The AP employee reviews the question before sending it and can later find the reply beside the same invoice.

The supplier’s document helps frame the question. It does not establish that the warehouse accepted four cartons. That still needs an answer. The agent should not change the received quantity in the ERP merely to make it match the invoice.

Keep the warehouse’s answer with the investigation

Once the warehouse replies, AP needs an updated account of the discrepancy. An agent can attach the explanation to the documents already gathered and show what has been established. If the reply links to a second receipt, the employee can open it and check the quantity. If the warehouse does not confirm receipt, AP has a specific point to pursue with the supplier.

The next person handling the invoice should not have to start with the same question. A short note explaining the difference and showing the latest reply lets them continue the investigation. It can also make clear that a warehouse answer is still pending. By keeping the question and subsequent replies with the invoice, the agent helps the employee see what has already been established.

The gathered documents and the warehouse’s answer help the person responsible for the invoice decide what to do next. Assigning an account and cost center is a separate task, covered in our article on invoice coding with supporting evidence.

Your ERP may already handle the mismatch

Before commissioning an agent, look at what the current system shows an employee when it detects a discrepancy. Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance documents price matching between invoices and purchase orders. Its three-way matching also compares invoice quantities with selected product receipts. The documentation covers tolerances, discrepancy details, and handling differences. See Microsoft’s accounts payable invoice matching overview.

If the necessary receipt is already in the ERP and an employee can easily find and match it to the invoice, the existing process may be sufficient. Similarly, if the discrepancy comes from an incorrectly extracted quantity on a scanned invoice, fix the extraction before building an investigation around the error.

An agent has a more specific role when explanations regularly require work outside the ERP: finding an email attachment, checking correspondence about a second shipment, and getting an answer from the warehouse. A project should make that work easier. There is no need to rebuild document matching that the system already performs.

What a trial can tell your team

Start with a resolved case where the AP employee remembers how they explained the difference. Check whether the agent finds the same useful document and prepares a question the warehouse can answer. A message that says only “quantity mismatch” adds little when the employee has already seen that in the ERP.

For the split delivery example, the gathered documents need to concern the same purchase order line. An email from the same supplier may describe a different shipment. If the connection is uncertain, the employee should see what needs checking before using the document in a question. An unreadable or inaccessible attachment also leaves work to be done.

Review the result with someone from AP and someone from the warehouse. The AP employee can assess whether it saves them from searching for the documents again. Their warehouse colleague can say whether the question includes enough information to find the delivery. Together, they can help establish whether the project needs to connect email with the ERP or improve how documents are attached in the existing process.

How Syntalith can help

Syntalith builds AI agents connected to company systems. An initial project for AP could cover quantity discrepancies in one purchasing process. The agent would gather the invoice, purchase order, and receipts, then look for related correspondence. The employee would receive a draft question with links to the relevant documents.

For a first conversation, describe one recurring discrepancy that sends your team searching outside the ERP. Explain whom the employee needs to contact and where the missing document usually turns up. See Syntalith’s pricing page for service pricing information.