Resolve a rejected ship-and-debit claim by identifying the rejected line and reason, reconciling that sale to the supplier's approved programme, and resubmitting only the supported remaining amount. Preserve accepted lines, previous claims, and every submission version. A corrected customer code may fix a rejection; a sale outside the agreed programme needs a commercial decision.
This guide is for distributors claiming supplier support for qualifying sales under an agreed pricing programme. It does not assume that selling below acquisition cost creates a supplier obligation. The authorisation defines the supported customer, product, period, quantity, and amount.
Download the ship-and-debit rejection workbench (Excel) to reconcile the original batch, supplier response, corrections, and final disposition.
Separate programme approval from claim approval
Find the supplier's authorisation or accepted special-pricing agreement before investigating the rejected claim. Record its reference, version, approved products and customers, qualifying date rule, rate or calculation basis, quantity limits, and submission conditions.
Programme approval establishes the terms under which sales may qualify. Claim review tests whether the particular transactions meet those terms. Oracle's E-Business Suite 12.2 ship-and-debit process distinguishes supplier approval of pricing requests from approval of the resulting claim amounts. Use the distinction even if your system uses different labels.
If no supplier approval can be found, ask the commercial owner to establish whether support was agreed. Do not describe an internal margin decision as a supplier-funded claim. The owner may seek a documented commercial resolution, but cannot treat a missing approval as a formatting error.
Preserve the original batch and supplier response
Save the exact transaction list, calculation, submission time, channel, and supplier acknowledgement. Import or record the response against stable line identifiers, keeping the supplier's original rejection code and explanation.
Classify each submitted amount as accepted, rejected, partially accepted, or awaiting a response. A technical upload error is different again: the supplier may never have received the claim. Record that transmission problem separately from commercial rejection.
For a partial line, record original submitted amount, accepted amount, and open amount. Oracle's ship-and-debit batch documentation describes partial approval and resubmission of rejected amounts. The practical control is to preserve the accepted portion while explaining exactly what changed in the remainder.
Build the authorisation-to-sale record chain
For each disputed line, collect:
- Supplier authorisation number and version, including any accepted extension.
- Supplier and internal product identifiers, with unit conversion where needed.
- Approved customer identity and the customer code used on the sale.
- Sales order, shipment, invoice, and qualifying-event dates.
- Quantity shipped or otherwise qualifying under the programme.
- Returns, cancellations, and customer credits relevant to that quantity.
- Agreed support rate or basis and the line calculation.
- Original batch, prior claims, and supplier response references.
Avoid using the invoice date by habit when the authorisation qualifies shipments. A sale ordered during the programme may ship after it ends. Conversely, an invoice raised later may document an in-period shipment. Match the required event rather than choosing the date that makes the line pass.
If multiple customer sites share an account, establish which sites the authorisation covers. A trading name that looks similar is not sufficient proof of the approved customer. Preserve the mapping evidence so the correction can be reused on future claims.
Choose the right branch for the rejection
For an incorrect reference or customer code, compare the submitted value with the source. Correct it with an old-value, new-value, evidence record. Do not change the underlying customer identity to fit an authorisation that did not cover the sale.
For a product or unit mismatch, confirm whether the supplier's code identifies the same material and pack size. If 10 cartons contain 100 units, show the conversion source and apply the approved rate to the correct unit. A substitute product requires explicit commercial coverage rather than a convenient mapping.
For date, quantity-cap, or rate disputes, reconstruct the qualifying transactions and cumulative programme usage. Ask the buyer to interpret conflicting terms or approve a supplier concession. A request for an extension is not an accepted extension.
For missing proof of sale, provide the relevant shipment or invoice evidence through the agreed channel, limiting it to information needed for the claim. For a duplicate rejection, locate the earlier claim and determine whether it is accepted, paid, withdrawn, or still open. An earlier unpaid claim is still a duplicate submission risk.
Reconcile returns and programme limits
A returned sale can change the supported quantity depending on the agreement. Link the return to its original sale rather than reducing whichever batch is easiest to edit. Record whether the return was already reflected in a previous adjustment.
Where a programme has a quantity cap, maintain a cumulative view across batches and sites covered by that programme. Include accepted and pending claims according to the agreed rules so two analysts do not independently use the same remaining allowance. Escalate uncertain allocation to the commercial owner.
Do not assume that the claim rate equals acquisition cost minus selling price. Programmes can define support differently. Use the approved fixed allowance or formula and identify its source. Finance checks monetary calculations and the final settlement method; the claim owner should not independently debit a payment because the workbench shows an amount due.
Work a rejected batch through a complete reconciliation
This example is illustrative. An approved programme pays $1.50 per qualifying unit sold to the named customer during its shipment window. It excludes returned units and duplicate claims. The original batch requests $1,500 for 1,000 units:
- Line A: 400 units, $600 requested and accepted.
- Line B: 300 units, $450 rejected for an incorrect customer code.
- Line C: 200 units, $300 requested; 100 units worth $150 are accepted, and 100 units worth $150 are disputed on shipment date.
- Line D: 100 units, $150 rejected as already included in an earlier claim.
The first response therefore accepts $750 and leaves $750 rejected. The analyst verifies the following corrections:
- B is the approved customer, but 20 of its units were returned and are ineligible under the programme. Correct the code and resubmit 280 units × $1.50 = $420. Withdraw $30 from the original line with the return reference.
- For C's 100 disputed units, shipment evidence supports 70 units within the window. Resubmit $105; withdraw $45 for the remaining 30 out-of-period units. Keep the original accepted $150 unchanged.
- D is a genuine duplicate of a still-open earlier claim. Withdraw this batch's $150 line and continue following the earlier claim under its own reference.
Original batch submitted $1,500
Accepted in first response $750
Additional supported amount: B $420 + C $105 $525
Withdrawn: returns $30 + date $45 + duplicate $150 $225
Reconciliation: $750 + $525 + $225 $1,500
The supplier accepts the additional $525. Final accepted value for this batch is $1,275, covering 850 unique eligible units. The earlier claim covering D's 100 units remains outside this batch's result. It is not lost, but it is not counted twice.
Finance later confirms $1,000 applied, with $275 still awaiting settlement. Report $1,275 accepted, $1,000 settled, and $275 accepted but unsettled. The $225 withdrawn explains the reduction from the original request; it is neither recovered value nor an unexplained disappearance.
Resubmit a correction the supplier can compare
Use the supplier's permitted amendment or resubmission process. Some processes expect changed lines; others require a replacement file. Follow the agreed convention and identify how the new version relates to the old one.
Include the original claim and rejected line references, original reason, corrected field or amount, evidence, and new amount requested. State which accepted amounts remain unchanged. Preserve the submitted version and acknowledgement so two versions cannot be mistaken for incremental claims.
Claim [reference], resubmission [version]
Line [ID], original rejection [code and explanation]
Correction: [old value] to [supported new value]
Evidence: [authorisation / sale / shipment reference]
Original amount: [amount]
Previously accepted: [amount]
Withdrawn with reason: [amount]
Remaining amount requested in this submission: [amount]
If a line is still unsupported, do not resubmit it unchanged merely to reset its age. Record the missing evidence or commercial decision and its owner.
Escalate unresolved commercial questions with a decision
Give the commercial owner the authorisation, disputed condition, supported facts, amount, and options. The decision may be to supply additional proof, seek an exception, accept the supplier's interpretation, or stop pursuing the line. Record the approver and reason.
The owner of customer pricing decides whether future sales can continue on the current commercial basis. A pending supplier claim does not authorise the claim analyst to change selling prices, select substitute materials, or assume the supplier will fund the next batch.
Choose review dates based on programme deadlines and the supplier's promised response. Keep unanswered lines visible as unanswered. Rejection statistics become misleading if every silent supplier response is coded as an invalid claim.
Follow accepted amounts through finance closure
Accepted lines need the agreed credit or other settlement document, correct supplier account and currency, and finance confirmation of application or receipt. Link those records to the original batch and relevant lines using the credit-note tracking workflow.
Close each line with an explicit disposition: accepted and financially complete, withdrawn as duplicate with the surviving claim linked, corrected to zero with evidence, or commercially resolved with approval. A closed batch can contain legitimate withdrawals; it should not imply every originally requested dollar was recovered.
Measure rejection quality and the remaining work
For a fixed set of first submissions, report rejected amount divided by submitted amount, by currency, and the number of lines with a substantive supplier response. In the example, first-response rejection by value is $750 divided by $1,500, or 50%. It is a description of this batch, not an industry benchmark.
Measure additional accepted amount from resubmission separately: $525 of the original $750 rejected, or 70% in the example. Also disclose the $225 withdrawn and the $275 still unsettled. Otherwise the recovery percentage can hide unsupported original submissions or unfinished financial work.
Review repeat reasons such as customer mapping errors or missing authorisations with their source-data owners. Mandel's claims and entitlements workflow helps assemble that evidence and carry supplier follow-up through to a documented result, while commercial and finance decisions remain with the authorised people.
