Start with the data, but do not stop there
Duplicate-looking payments, repeated invoice numbers, credit balances and unusual vendor patterns are useful signals. They are not recovery claims by themselves. One invoice can be paid twice for legitimate reasons, and one credit memo can already have been applied somewhere else.
The audit has to reconcile the candidate to the source before anybody contacts the vendor. That is what turns a query result into a supportable recovery position.
Common recovery categories
- Duplicate or near-duplicate payments
- Unapplied vendor credits
- Missed rebates or discounts supported by the agreement
- Price or quantity variances supported by the PO/contract and invoice
- Old credit balances that never flowed back into AP
How to keep the audit from becoming another consulting project
Use a bounded historical window, require source support, work the vendor response and record actual credits/refunds. Good Remedy’s launch model is 15% of verified recovered dollars, so the audit can start without a project fee.
A useful closeout also captures the control gap that allowed the recovery to exist, but the recovery service does not need to turn into an ERP redesign.
When cleanup and recovery overlap
Vendor-master duplicates are often upstream of duplicate payments and reporting noise. If the audit keeps finding the same vendor under multiple records, a separate controlled vendor-master cleanup may be worth doing after the recovery pass.
Hand off the work, not the judgment.
If the job is defined enough to operate, Good Remedy can often take the recurring queue or bounded backlog off your team.
Explore Business Services