A finding is not a red flag on a dashboard. It is a verified, evidence-backed workpaper artifact produced by a five-stage pipeline. This guide walks through every stage so your controller knows exactly what lands on their desk and why it is defensible.
Ingest → Extract → Match → Verify → Package
Illustrative invoice — every figure on this page traces the same thread
The audit begins the moment your AR team uploads a batch of short-paid invoices. Axiom accepts spreadsheets and CSVs straight out of your ERP, and contracts as PDFs. The normalizer turns every input into a structured invoice line: reference, customer, billed, paid, short-pay, deduction code and reason, invoice date, payment date.
Why this matters: reformatting a remittance export into something auditable is usually a manual step before the real work starts. The normalizer expects the mess instead — title rows above the header, merged cells, currency symbols, negatives written in parentheses, and column names nobody standardised. You upload the raw file; rows it cannot read come back reported rather than silently dropped.
Each ingested document is assigned a unique workpaper trace ID (e.g. WP-2026-0847) that follows the invoice through every downstream step — extraction, matching, finding generation, and dispute packaging. This trace ID is your auditor's chain of custody.
Once invoices are ingested, Axiom reads the customer's signed Master Vendor Agreement (MVA), Purchase Order terms, or pricing schedule. The system extracts specific contractual provisions into structured clause objects — each tagged with a section reference, an effective date range, and the governing commercial logic.
The five clause families Axiom extracts most frequently are: freight terms (FOB Origin vs Destination, with dollar thresholds), early payment discount windows (2/10 Net 30, with day-count verification), master price protection schedules (rate lock periods and advance notice requirements), volume rebate tiers (annual growth thresholds and quarterly settlement terms), and de minimis claim floors (minimum deduction values below which disputes are not filed).
Every extraction is cross-verified by a staff auditor before any finding is generated. The AI proposes; the human confirms. This dual-pass architecture is what separates an Axiom workpaper from a spreadsheet guess.
This is where the audit happens. Each invoice line item is compared against the extracted contract clause that governs it. The matching engine evaluates: was the unit price on the invoice consistent with the signed price schedule? Did the buyer deduct a 2% cash discount, and if so, was the payment actually received within the 10-day window? Did the buyer charge back freight on an order that qualified for seller-paid FOB Destination terms?
The output is one of three verdicts per line. Recoverable: the deduction contradicts a clause that resolves against it, and the amount is computed in code. Valid deduction: the contract permits it, so it should be written off and the finding says why. Unverified: no governing clause resolved, so the line carries no dollar amount at all. That third verdict is deliberate — telling you what could not be established is more useful than handing you a confident number with nothing underneath it.
Every recoverable line is backed by a clause reference, a page anchor, a dollar amount, and the arithmetic that produced it. The expensive step is reading a contract, and it happens once per contract rather than once per invoice; the reconciliation that runs against every line afterwards is arithmetic. We have not published a throughput figure, because we have not run the benchmark that would earn one.
No finding leaves the system without a human auditor reviewing the match. The verification step exists because contract language is nuanced — a freight clause might say ‘FOB Destination on orders over $10,000’ but the PO might include a freight prepay-and-add amendment. The AI catches the clause; the auditor catches the exception.
During verification, the auditor attaches the supporting evidence artifact: a signed carrier Bill of Lading (BOL) for freight disputes, a bank ACH clearance timestamp for discount disputes, or a master price list effective date for pricing variances. This evidence is what makes the dispute defensible — not an assertion, but a document.
The auditor's verdict is stamped onto the finding workpaper as one of three outcomes: Recoverable (the deduction is invalid and a dispute should be filed), Legitimate (the deduction is valid and should be written off), or Under Review (additional documentation is needed from the buyer before a verdict can be issued).
Every finding marked ‘Recoverable’ produces a formatted dispute letter. The letter is not a template — it is dynamically assembled from the finding's clause reference, dollar amount, invoice number, PO reference, and attached evidence artifact. The letter cites the exact contract section violated, states the recoverable balance, and includes the original supporting document as an attachment.
The package comes out as a document your AR team reviews, edits, approves, and sends — through whichever channel that buyer uses. Axiom never logs into a buyer portal on your behalf and never contacts your customers. Nothing goes out without your sign-off, and when it does, it goes out under your name.
The complete workpaper package — the reconciliation ledger, the contract extractions, the finding details, and the dispute letters — is delivered to your team within 48 hours of upload. This is not a dashboard-only output. It is a downloadable, printable, auditor-grade deliverable that your controller can hand to the external audit firm.
Upload your short-pay remittances and signed contract terms. Axiom runs every invoice through this five-stage pipeline and delivers a completed workpaper package within 48 hours.