Workflow design · scope to your operationFrom trigger to finished work
- Compare channel snapshots
- join sales/transfers/returns
- classify discrepancy
- assemble evidence
- assigned review
- approved adjustment
- verify next count
The rules that matter
Treat transfers as a state change, not new stock. Preserve raw events. Reconcile by variant and location; authorised adjustments require reason and evidence.
When the normal path breaks
Unrecorded walk-in sale; damage; wrong item shipped; count errors; missing receipts; in-transit goods.
Uncertain inputs go to an assigned owner with the source, reason and next decision. Failed writes are reconciled before retrying, so a recovered connection does not create a duplicate order, payment or stock movement.
How we would measure it
Investigation minutes; unexplained units/value; repeat discrepancy rate; aged unresolved adjustments.
Sample representative work before the build, including difficult cases. Compare the same task mix after launch; include review, exception handling and system upkeep in the time used.
Start with one accountable slice
Map the first input, the final accepted result and who can approve it. Agree source systems, read/write access, rules, exception ownership and acceptance checks. Run representative normal, failure and recovery cases before expanding across teams.
What makes this suitable for larger teams?
Role-based access, separation of preparation and approval, versioned rules, an action history, duplicate protection, reconciliation, alerts and a named recovery owner. Private deployment or customer-controlled infrastructure can be scoped where needed. These are design requirements to validate, not an unsupported promise of perfect source data or regulatory compliance.
Before you buildQuestions about this workflow
Specific answers to help you judge the fit, the information needed and the decisions your team keeps.
Which stock records do you compare before calling something a discrepancy?
We align the product variant, location and cut-off time before comparing POS, warehouse or store balances. Sales, reservations, returns and transfers need compatible definitions. A supplier availability figure or stock currently travelling between sites should not be compared directly with local physical stock.
Can this explain missing units rather than simply flag a mismatch?
The investigation view can gather the relevant sales, transfers, returns, receipts and count records around a difference. It suggests an evidence-supported category and identifies missing events. Where the records do not explain the gap, the case remains unresolved for a count or operational review.
Will it automatically adjust the stock balance?
An investigation and a stock adjustment are separate steps. Agreed low-risk corrections may be eligible for a controlled path, but unexplained losses need authorised review. Record the reason, before-and-after quantity and source evidence, then verify that the intended system accepted the adjustment.
How do transfers and returns avoid looking like lost or newly created stock?
A transfer keeps one identity through dispatch, transit and receipt, so the same units are not added twice. Returns remain separate until their destination and condition are confirmed. Missing receipts, damaged returns and incomplete transfers become owned cases instead of silently changing the available balance.
How do we judge whether reconciliation is improving?
Use a representative set of discrepancy cases and preserve the original evidence. Compare investigation time, unexplained units or value, repeat causes and aged adjustments. A faster report alone is insufficient; check whether staff can close cases and whether later counts support the recorded resolution.