A finding is not a red flag on a dashboard. It is a verified, evidence-backed workpaper artifact produced by a five-stage pipeline: ingest, extract, match, verify, and package. This page walks through every stage in detail so your controller knows exactly what lands on their desk and why it is defensible.
Every finding contains exactly these four artifacts. No exceptions.
The audit begins the moment your AR team uploads a batch of short-paid invoices. Axiom accepts EDI 810/820 transaction sets, lockbox check stubs, retailer portal CSVs, or even forwarded email remittances. The parser normalizes every input into a structured invoice object: line items, quantities, unit prices, tax, freight charges, payment amounts, and reason codes.
Why this matters: most AR teams spend 2–4 hours per week just reformatting remittance data into something auditable. Axiom's parser eliminates that step entirely. You upload the raw file; the system returns a clean, line-level reconciliation within minutes.
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 matching output is a binary verdict for each line: compliant (the deduction was legitimate and should be written off) or non-compliant (the deduction violates a specific clause and is recoverable). There is no ambiguity, no 'maybe', no 'needs further review'. Every non-compliant line is backed by a clause reference, a dollar amount, and an evidence artifact.
For a typical 12-invoice sample audit, the matching engine evaluates 40–60 individual line items across 2–3 contract documents in under 90 seconds. A manual review of the same scope takes an experienced AR analyst 6–8 hours.
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.
Dispute packages are formatted for the buyer's preferred submission channel: Walmart APDP portal upload, Amazon Vendor Central chargeback response, Target HighRadius submission, or direct AP email dispatch. Your AR team reviews the letter, makes any edits, approves, and sends. Nothing goes out without your sign-off.
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.