AI bookkeeping: how to resolve missing facts and ambiguous matches

A payment arrives before the invoice

A business pays a supplier €600. There is no invoice in the records. The order confirmation shows a €2,000 purchase, and the supplier’s request explicitly calls the €600 a deposit.

That evidence answers the first question: the money is an advance on the order. It has not yet settled a recorded invoice. In a simplified ledger without VAT, the payment increases the supplier-advance asset by €600 and reduces the bank by €600.

When the €2,000 invoice is subsequently recognised, the €600 advance is applied to it. The remaining amount payable is €1,400. After the final payment, the advance and the invoice balance are both zero.

The documents have different jobs: the order and deposit request explain the first payment; the invoice establishes the billed purchase; the bank records prove the two payments. VAT on an advance requires its own assessment. The example deliberately isolates the settlement arithmetic.

If the business only answers “supplier payment,” the decisive fact remains missing. A better question is: “Was this the deposit requested for order 84, or payment of an invoice? Please attach the relevant request.”

Two invoices have the same amount

A customer owes €800 on invoice R-104 and another €800 on R-118. A bank receipt is also €800. Matching on amount alone cannot select an invoice.

The payment reference says R-118. The payer is the customer, and the customer’s remittance advice confirms that reference. Allocate €800 to R-118:

R-104 stays open with its original due date. Automatically taking the oldest invoice would distort the collection list. If the reference were missing, retain the unallocated receipt while requesting the allocation; do not erase either invoice simply because the total cash is correct.

A customer deducts an amount in dispute

A €1,200 invoice receives €1,100. The customer writes “€100 deducted for late delivery.”

First record the €1,100 receipt against the invoice. The remaining €100 is still visible. The customer’s explanation alone does not establish an agreed price reduction.

Now suppose the business accepts the reduction and issues the appropriate €100 correction document. Applying that correction clears the remaining balance:

€1,200 invoice − €1,100 payment − €100 correction = €0.

If the business rejects the deduction, the €100 remains a receivable under investigation. A write-off or valuation adjustment is a separate decision with its own grounds. Any VAT correction must follow the actual facts and applicable rules.

What Hans does with these distinctions

Hans’s document and client agents gather evidence and ask for missing business facts. The bank agent investigates references and payment relationships. Bookkeeping processing connects the resulting entries and settlements; the accountant agent examines journals, balances and unresolved issues.

This includes producing and closing the monthly books within the configured workflow. Professional judgement and tax filings retain their separate responsibilities. Hans does not initiate supplier payments.

A useful answer therefore names the fact: “Deposit on order 84,” “Payment of R-118,” or “Price reduction accepted; correction attached.” Each answer moves one case to an explainable accounting result.

For the allocation mechanics, see one payment covering several invoices. For a documented reduction, see credit notes, cancellations and refunds.