Vendor statement reconciliation that explains every gap and chases it to proof
Every supplier statement tied to our ledger before close, and every gap chased to proof.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Vendor statement reconciliation compares a supplier's statement of account with your AP ledger for that supplier, line by line, and resolves every difference: invoices you never received, payments the supplier has not applied, missing credit memos, duplicates and price differences. Vendor Statement Reconciliation does it with six agents that read the statement, tie the lines, explain each gap with its sources and chase the supplier, while a person approves every message, entry and sign-off.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Every month suppliers send a statement of account: what they think we owe, line by line. The AP ledger has its own answer, and the two rarely agree. Somewhere in the gap are invoices that never reached AP, payments the supplier has not applied, credits we were promised and never received, and invoices we posted twice and are about to pay twice. Today an AP specialist ticks the two lists against each other in a spreadsheet, pulls the orders, receipts and bank lines to work out why, emails the supplier and waits. So most teams only get through their top suppliers by spend.
The matching is minutes; the chase is weeks. And what goes unreconciled costs money in both directions. A missing invoice is paid late, which can bring statutory interest and a supplier who puts the account on stop, and it hides a liability at close. A duplicate goes out in the next payment run. A credit or a debit balance nobody claims goes quiet until, in many US states, it becomes reportable unclaimed property. When the controller signs the AP close, nobody can say for certain that nothing big is sitting unexplained.
Estimated split, in days, for one supplier statement with open differences, from arrival to an explained gap and a sign-off — by hand and with the solution.
Six agents read, tie, explain and chase every statement and check each other; a person approves every message, entry and sign-off.
Brennock Industrial Supply — MRO and hydraulics, Net 45, about $1.85M a year — emails its statement of 30 September 2026 to Kestrel & Vane Group. It says $64,118.20. Our Americas ledger says $41,902.75. Here is how the gap closes, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Priya owns 225 Americas suppliers. 418 statements are in from 460 suppliers in scope, and the agents have tied out 352 on their own; 46 are with the agents, asking suppliers and reading replies, and 20 need her, $353,337.83 still different in all. What they found reads as messages, each with numbered citations: Brennock explained, the same cause at six more suppliers, an Orrin invoice about to be paid twice in Friday's run.
Gap explainer: “Brennock’s statement is $22,215.45 above our ledger. I have explained all of it.”
Priya asks in plain words, beside her briefing. The gap explainer answers with its sources numbered: their statement says $64,118.20, our ledger $41,902.75; HIS-48817 and HIS-48902 have goods receipts but never reached us, because they went to the retired Northfield mailbox; and our 26 Sep payment of $2,875.45 cleared on 27 Sep but is not on their statement. One click opens the statement mirror.
Brennock's statement sits on the left, our ledger on the right, and the difference between them in the middle: $22,215.45. Eleven of the statement's 13 lines are tied across the gap, each labelled with how — six by the same reference, two where the reference differs (INV 48655 to HIS-48655, HIS-48701/A to HIS48701A), one invoice split into goods and freight, and two payments by amount and date. A step bar shows Read, Tie and Explain done, Ask the supplier next.
Click any tie to see why it was made, and untie it if you disagree: the line goes back to the gaps.
What does not tie floats to the middle in two groups. We have not received, $19,340.00: 240 hydraulic fittings and 80 roller bearings with orders and goods receipts, invoiced to ap.northfield, a mailbox retired on 15 Sep; the invoice inbox and capture queue show no match. They have not applied our payment, $2,875.45: ACH 0926-7731, cleared 27 Sep, still open on their aged list. Every number links to the passage it came from.
Mailbox change notice MB-0915: “The plant mailboxes ap.northfield@kestrelvane.example and ap.lyleroad@kestrelvane.example were retired on 15 Sep 2026. All invoices now go to invoices@kestrelvane.example.”
Having found the cause, the explainer looks for it at every other supplier. Six more still address September invoices to the two retired plant mailboxes: 13 invoices, $41,806.20, from Calloway Packaging to Asterly Office Supplies. One click drafts a request to each with what it needs and the new address — and each still waits for a person's approval.
The supplier chaser writes to Lena Fairweather in accounts receivable at Brennock: copies of HIS-48817 ($11,620.00) and HIS-48902 ($7,720.00), please apply ACH 0926-7731 to HIS-48590, and send all invoices to invoices@kestrelvane.example from now on. The remittance advice is attached, with a secure link to upload the copies that shows only Brennock's own items. Priya can edit, reject or preview it as Lena sees it; she approves and sends.
“Nothing goes to a supplier until you approve it.”
Lena replies with both invoice copies and a revised statement: the payment was sitting on account and is now applied. The chaser reads the reply and its three attachments, sends the copies to invoice processing — order, receipt and invoice agree — and the payment group turns Resolved. Their side is now $61,242.75; the difference is down to $19,340.00, with the adjustment preparer's entry proposed.
The adjustment preparer proposes posting the two invoices, $19,340.00, with reason ADJ-01, and routes it by amount to Daniel. His screen shows the proof on one page: the invoice copies, orders 4500-77213 and -77260, the goods receipts and the statement line. The close checker has re-performed the entry on its own and agrees. Daniel approves and posts; the preparer only releases the parked entry on his say-so.
Close checker · “Re-performed on its own: agrees with $19,340.00.”
Back on the mirror both sides read $61,242.75 and the difference is $0.00. Sign-off opens: 11 tied lines, 3 explained items and the trail as evidence, no open items. Priya signs with SO-01, “Tied out: no difference”, and the signed reconciliation with its evidence goes into the September close package.
“You prepared this reconciliation, so your sign-off is the preparer’s. The AP manager reviews a 10% sample each month.”
Ruth opens the audit trail — every agent and person action, append-only, each entry chained to the one before — and re-performs Brennock read-only. The statement is read again from the original email, the lines tied again from the 06:00 ledger extract, the 3 explanations checked against their 9 citations, and the result compared with the record.
“Same result as the record. The signed reconciliation is re-performed to the cent: $61,242.75 on both sides.”
The same September close, seen by five of the people who carry it — what their month-end looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents read, tie, explain and chase every statement and check each other; a person approves every message, entry and sign-off.
Reads every statement that arrives — by email, from supplier portals or uploaded — and finds the supplier, the period, the balance, every line and the aged section.
Ties each statement line to the ledger even when references, dates or the number of lines differ: a reference that differs in prefix or punctuation, one line split into two, a payment by amount and date.
Works out why each line that does not tie is different — not received, payment not applied, credit memo missing, duplicate, price above the contract, dispute or timing — from orders, receipts, payments, the bank and the mailbox log, and looks for the same cause at other suppliers.
Writes to the supplier for missing statements, invoice copies, credit memos and payment applications, reminds on the reply clock, reads replies and their attachments, and sends invoice copies to invoice processing.
Proposes the ledger entry or payment-run hold the evidence supports, with its reason code, and routes it by amount: under $5,000 to a specialist in another region, up to $50,000 to the AP manager, above that to the group controller.
Re-performs every explanation and proposed entry from the raw records, on its own, re-checks every signed statement each night, and builds the month-end close package.
Approve messages, entries and holds; sign with a reason code. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any supplier, statement or difference, or tell the agents what to do. Every answer cites its sources and offers the next step.
Why is Brennock’s statement $22,215.45 higher than our ledger?
Two reasons, both cited. We have not received HIS-48817 and HIS-48902, $19,340.00: the goods arrived, but the invoices went to a mailbox we retired on 15 Sep. And Brennock has not applied our payment of $2,875.45, which cleared on 27 Sep. The request to Lena Fairweather is drafted.
Are we about to pay anything twice?
Yes, one in Friday’s run: Orrin’s OEC-30418, $6,932.10, is in our ledger twice and both are in run PR-WK42; the cut-off is Thu 15 Oct, 14:00. Three more duplicates are outside this run. In all, 4 duplicates, $19,510.44.
What still blocks the September close?
Statements that need a person, the approvals waiting, 42 statements not received (36 promised by Friday), and the Orrin hold before Thursday’s cut-off. None of the open items is above $50,000.
Draft requests to every supplier still billing the retired mailboxes
Six suppliers, 13 invoices, $41,806.20, still go to ap.northfield@ or ap.lyleroad@. I will draft one request each with the new address; each waits for your approval.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Approval limits, matching tolerances, confidence levels and clocks are settings — every change saved as a new version and logged.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Entries approved by an AP specialist in another region | Up to $5,000.00 | Any amount you set |
| Entries approved by the AP manager | Up to $50,000.00 | Any amount you set; above it, the group controller approves |
| Payment-run holds approved by | AP manager | AP manager · Any AP specialist |
| Write-off tolerance | $25.00 or 0.1% | Small differences proposed as a write-off (ADJ-05) |
| Payment date tolerance | ±3 days | Days either side for a payment tied by amount |
| Split and combined lines | Up to 5 | Ledger lines for one statement line |
| When the agents ask a person | Reader under 90% · explainer under 75% | Ties under 95% are shown as suggestions |
| Supplier reply clock | 3 business days, escalate after 2 reminders | Statement requests on the 1st or 2nd working day after period end |
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 (APQC Open Standards Benchmarking via CFO.com — duplicate or erroneous payments 0.8% of disbursements for top performers, 2% for bottom performers; EU Late Payment Directive 2011/7/EU — statutory interest at the reference rate plus at least 8 percentage points and a fixed €40 per late invoice). Kestrel & Vane Group, its suppliers, invoices, mailboxes and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Vendor statement reconciliation compares a supplier's statement of account with your AP ledger for that supplier, line by line, and resolves every difference: invoices you never received, payments the supplier has not applied, missing credit memos, duplicates and price differences. Vendor Statement Reconciliation does it with six agents that read the statement, tie the lines, explain each gap with its sources and chase the supplier, while a person approves every message, entry and sign-off.
The line matcher ignores prefixes, punctuation, spaces and leading zeros in references, ties one statement line to up to five ledger lines, and ties payments by amount within ±3 days. Each tie is labelled with how it was made and its confidence; ties under 95% are shown as suggestions, and any tie can be undone.
No first message goes to a supplier without a person's approval. The supplier chaser drafts the request with exactly what is missing, sends it once approved, reminds after 3 business days, escalates to the AP manager after 2 reminders, and reads the reply and its attachments when they arrive.
Yes. When an invoice is in the ledger twice, the adjustment preparer proposes holding the copy from the next payment run, with both postings cited and the run's cut-off shown. The AP manager approves the hold with a reason code.
The statement reader asks a person when it is under 90% sure of a value, and the gap explainer when it is under 75% sure of a cause. When the close checker disagrees with the explainer, both views are shown with their sources and a person decides; the reason is kept with the decision.
Yes. The agents never post, never change supplier bank details and never decide a dispute or a price. A named person approves every first message, entry, hold and sign-off with a reason code, entries are routed by amount, and the person who prepared a reconciliation can never approve its entry.
Every agent and person action is on an append-only trail, each entry chained to the one before. Internal audit can filter it, check the chain, export it and re-perform any reconciliation read-only, from the original statement to the signed result.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your AP policy, approval limits, matching rules and a sample of past statements — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. First-time setup ends with a test run on last month's statements.
Blocked invoices released before late fees and supplier holds, every fix checked twice.
1-min demoVendor Payment Fraud PreventionEvery bank change proven by a call-back before a single dollar moves.
1-min demoExpense Report AuditEvery report checked, not a sample, and no forged receipt paid without proof of payment.
1-min demoWe'll run Vendor Statement Reconciliation on a sample of your own supplier statements and last month's ledger.