[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":71},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fsrm-claim-quality-debit:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":70},"insights\u002Fsrm-claim-quality-debit","Claim raised but money never deducted? Quality debit must hit AP—not sit in email attachments - JEDP Digital Platform","Quality claims never tie when claim, 8D, debit notice, and AP offset run apart. Bind claims to IQC\u002FNCR and PO lines; put debit into auditable AP; close disputes with evidence.","Supplier claim, quality debit, incoming-quality debit, SRM claim management","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm-slide6.webp",[13,30,44],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"@id":16,"headline":17,"description":6,"inLanguage":18,"datePublished":19,"dateModified":20,"articleSection":21,"keywords":7,"image":11,"author":22,"publisher":24,"isPartOf":25,"mainEntityOfPage":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-claim-quality-debit#article","Claim raised but money never deducted? Quality debit must hit AP—not sit in email attachments","zh-CN","2026-07-09","2026-10-17","SRM · Supplier",{"@id":23},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":23},{"@id":26},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights#collection",{"@type":28,"@id":29},"WebPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-claim-quality-debit",{"@context":14,"@type":31,"itemListElement":32},"BreadcrumbList",[33,38,42],{"@type":34,"position":35,"name":36,"item":37},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":34,"position":39,"name":40,"item":41},2,"Insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights",{"@type":34,"position":43,"name":17,"item":29},3,{"@context":14,"@type":45,"@id":46,"mainEntity":47},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-claim-quality-debit#faq",[48,54,58,62,66],{"@type":49,"name":50,"acceptedAnswer":51},"Question","What if the supplier rejects the debit?",{"@type":52,"text":53},"Answer","Dispute status freezes automatic deductions, with evidence submission allowed within a limited time; if overdue, it escalates to joint review by Purchasing and SQE. Verbal settlements are not entered into the system, which amounts to encouraging disputes on the next order.",{"@type":49,"name":55,"acceptedAnswer":56},"Can a claim silently change the statement total?",{"@type":52,"text":57},"Not recommended. The reconciliation bank should see the details of the claim deductions. Audit should be able to trace back from the payable differences to the claim forms and non-conforming forms.",{"@type":49,"name":59,"acceptedAnswer":60},"Can we debit before the 8D is closed?",{"@type":52,"text":61},"Configurable 'Temporary Deduction Closing Adjustment'. Temporary deductions should also have a document number and a due review to avoid permanently unassigned accounts.",{"@type":49,"name":63,"acceptedAnswer":64},"Can late-delivery penalties and quality debits share one document?",{"@type":52,"text":65},"It is recommended to categorize. Approvers, evidence packages, and accounting subjects are different; mixing them will confuse both the accounts and the suppliers during verification.",{"@type":49,"name":67,"acceptedAnswer":68},"Do small claims still need the system?",{"@type":52,"text":69},"Set a threshold. Under the threshold, batch summarization is possible, but a business key is still required; relying solely on emails will definitely be inconsistent after three months.","\u003Carticle class=\"insight-article\">\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-container\">\n      \u003Cnav class=\"breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\">\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002F\">Home\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002Finsights\">Insights\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Cspan>SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n\n      \u003Cheader class=\"insight-hero\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Quality claim\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Deduction Reconciliation\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Supplier Collaboration\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Claim raised but money never deducted? Quality debit must hit AP—not sit in email attachments\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">SQE says the debit letter went out; finance sees nothing in AP; purchasing says the supplier only trusts the statement. Three emails, two spreadsheets, one WeChat shot—small claim, overtime reconcile meeting.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-07-09\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~8 min read\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>Manufacturing digitalization · SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fheader>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-takeaways\">\n        \u003Ch2>What you'll take away\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cul>\u003Cli>The claim form must be linked to incoming material nonconformity \u002F NCR \u002F 8D and the purchase order line; 'amount only without business key' is prohibited.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Amount items can be selected and recalculated; automatic deduction only applies to 'formula matched and undisputed' cases\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Deductions are by default applied to accounts payable and are visible on the statement; disputed freezes are automatically deducted, and closure requires confirmation from both parties or escalation for resolution.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Completion rate is based on 'deducted amount \u002F effective claims', not on 'number of emails sent'\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>First, run through the 'nonconforming → claim → deduction' process for a high-frequency category, then expand to delivery\u002Flogistics claims.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"扣款函很正式-应付里却没有这一行\">The debit letter looks formal—AP has no line\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The Quality Month meeting ended, and the SQE scanned three deduction notices into PDFs and posted them in the group. When accounting was reconciling, they asked: which invoice does this offset, and which accounts payable does it charge? The purchaser opened the 'Claims Ledger' Excel file; the row numbers matched, but the amounts were off by more than a hundred—a shipment cost had been orally waived. Suppliers only recognize the portal reconciliation statement at the end of the month; email attachments don't count.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Claiming is difficult, and the difficulty lies in the fact that it has never been a business object that accounts payable can reference. There are nonconformance reports, 8D reports, deduction letters, and payable totals—everything in between relies on manual translation, and once translated, it often gets lost. The more formal the email, the easier it is for people to think 'it's already done'; and when finance opens the accounts payable details, that line still doesn't exist.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"索赔单要能回答的五件事\">Five things a claim must answer\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Field\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Must be able to answer\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What will happen if it's missing?\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Business Key\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Which incoming material is non-compliant \u002F NCR \u002F customer complaint forwarded to supplier; which PO is valid\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Finance treats it as 'procurement says to pay less'\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Responsibility State\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>SQE has been determined; supplier has confirmed \u002F under dispute \u002F default due to timeout\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Dispute and effectiveness are mixed together\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Amount Item\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Materials, rework sorting, line stoppage, shipping costs, customer complaint compensation — can be checked\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Slash once verbally each time\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Deduction path\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Accounts Payable Deduction (Default) \u002F Reissue Invoice \u002F Cash\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The statement does not match the discrepancy\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Close evidence\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Deduction voucher number or settlement agreement\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The completion rate is inflated by 'letter sent'.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Claims without a business key cannot pass the audit; claims with a business key but cannot enter accounts payable are equivalent to using the system as a typewriter. At least one claims form should be traceable from the accounts payable discrepancy line: Claim number → Nonconformance\u002FNCR → PO line → Batch or delivery note. If any step in between requires asking in group chat, it indicates that the object model has not been established yet.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"金额-能复算-才配自动抵扣\">Only recalculable amounts deserve auto-debit\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The point of contention usually isn't 'whether to deduct,' but 'what to deduct.' In the template, the categories are fixed, and free adjustments each time are prohibited:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Itemized\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Fetch data\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Points of contention (contract\u002Fappendix written fixed in advance)\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Material\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Defective Quantity × Standard Cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Whether it includes processing fees, whether it includes taxes\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Sorting \u002F Rework\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Actual hours × Rate\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Does it include management allocation?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Line stop\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Minutes of downtime after review × line rate\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Whether waiting materials are included\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Shipping \u002F Express\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Invoice Amount\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Is it shared bilaterally?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Customer complaint compensation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Compensation Voucher\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Whether fully passed on\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>It is recommended to hard-code two conditions for automatic deduction: itemized formula is hit; the supplier has not disputed the status. Freeze automatic deduction during disputes, set a time limit for evidence submission, and decide according to the escalation matrix if time expires. The amount is smoothed each time based on personal favor, and the account subject and trust are worn down together.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Temporary deductions can exist—for example, if 8D is not closed or the loss has already occurred—but they must be marked as 'temporary' and carried to the due review date. After closing the case, any excess refund or shortfall should be handled through an adjustment line; silently changing the amount on the original line is prohibited. Permanent unassigned accounts are harder to trace than not making a deduction at all.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"三种-看起来已经扣了\">Three fake “already deducted” loops\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>pseudo closed loop\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>On-site statements\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>System Rules\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Effective immediately upon email\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Once the letter is sent, it counts.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Without supplier signing\u002Fconfirmation, it will not go into accounts payable\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Excel Ledger\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>\"It's on my form\"\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The ledger cannot generate deduction entries\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Oral reconciliation write-off\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>\"Open a little less this time\"\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The difference must be able to reference back to the claim number\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Complete definition has only one chain:\u003Cstrong>Effective → Payable Deduction Line → Visible on Statement → Dispute Closed with Evidence\u003C\u002Fstrong>Missing a step, the completion rate is inflated. If the board still uses 'number of letters sent' as completion, SQEs will be trained to be email-sending experts rather than to deduct money from payables.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"从-IQC-长出来-别从空气里长出来\">Grow claims from IQC—not from thin air\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Ideal trigger: IQC finds nonconformance and the responsibility lies with the supplier → generate a draft claim (can be modified) → SQE confirms it effective. For large claims without a nonconformance report, the audit will ask for evidence; if there is a nonconformance report but claims are never made, SQE will only return goods without accounting.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Drafts are not a punishment: SQE is allowed to remove items or change the responsible party, but changes should be tracked. The automatic draft conversion rate is too low, mostly because the business keys are incomplete or the amount formulas are inconsistent with the contract appendix — first fix the trigger conditions, then force people to 'must file a claim'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Split from CAPA: one-off quantifiable loss → claim; recurring defects and system causes → CAPA. They can run in parallel—do not let CAPA “in discussion” block an already confirmed material debit, or suppliers will stall offsets with meetings. Customer-complaint claims still need a concrete NCR\u002Flot key, not a bare ticket number. Late-delivery penalties and logistics claims have different approvers and accounts—split documents; mixing them into quality claims muddies period-end account analysis.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"跨法人-多币种-多工厂\">Cross-entity, multi-currency, multi-plant\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Common pitfalls in group procurement: non-conforming items are produced at Factory A, accounts payable are recorded under Legal Entity B, yet the supplier master data is linked to the group node. Claim forms must indicate the settlement entity and currency; deductions can only be applied to the accounts payable organization that matches the PO. Cross-entity 'deduct first, deal later' will result in discrepancies that cannot be found in the consolidated financial statements.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>When the supplier portal confirmation language is inconsistent with the master data language, the text on the confirmation button and the tax-included amount criteria must be consistent—otherwise, the supplier can click confirm and still say 'I don't understand whether the deduction is before or after tax.' Whether to use the exchange rate on the effective date or the reconciliation date must also be included in the rules; otherwise, if each party uses their own rate afterward, the difference will be disguised as 'amount miscalculation.'\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"绩效怎么挂才不逼人私下和解\">Score claims so people do not settle offline\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The claim amount does not necessarily enter the 'deduction ranking.' More useful external indicators are: the number of unresolved cases, average days to close, and recurring defect codes. Amounts are more suitable for internal use. A humiliating amount leaderboard will force 'private settlements not recorded in the system,' causing data to be distorted again.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Repeat claims that are not closed should be tagged as risk: the same defect code occurring three times in three months must be reviewed in the share assessment. The board only displays OTIF and price, and does not show unclosed claims; procurement will continue to increase orders, and SQE will only issue letters. The list of unclosed overdue claims should go to the joint meeting of procurement and quality, rather than only appearing in the SQE person's personal to-do list.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"一个品类-两周-三张数\">One category, two weeks, three metrics\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Select a category where incoming materials are frequently non-compliant and the amount can be calculated clearly: draft a claim within seven days after non-compliance is closed or transferred to the supplier; formula is fixed; payables deduction should include the claim number. Only look at the two-week period: draft → effective conversion rate, dispute proportion, and drill-down rate of reconciliation statements. Move email attachments out of 'Claimed' statistics.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>If the conversion rate doesn't improve, first check whether the business key is mandatory and whether supplier confirmation can be skipped—unless these two pseudo-closed loops are dismantled, expanding product categories will only expand the Excel sheet. If the proportion of disputes is abnormally high, go back and check whether the contract appendix has fixed the item boundaries; if the drill-down rate is low, it indicates that the payable side has not yet referenced the claim object.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"验收时怎么抽\">How to sample at acceptance\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Any three recent claims that have already taken effect:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>Is it possible to trace back the claim form, non-conformance form, and PO line from the offset deduction line?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Whether the supplier confirms or the evidence for closing the dispute is complete;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Can the amount items be recalculated to yuan (or the agreed precision) according to the template?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>Any item relying on email replies indicates that the business key or deduction path is still broken. Then pull the 'Sent letter not yet entered in accounts payable' list: if it remains non-empty for a long time, the pseudo-closed loop where emails are effective still exists. Pull a dispute closure record: the closer, the basis of the ruling, and whether automatic deduction was ever frozen—if the three don't match, the escalation matrix is just a flowchart on the wall.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"和应付-开票-付款的同键要求\">Same-key rules with AP, invoice, and pay\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>After the claim deduction is applied to the accounts payable, the statement line should display: claim number, subtotal of items, and whether it is frozen due to dispute. If the invoice is issued before the deduction, there will be two sets of amounts: 'invoice payable' and 'payable after deduction' — the rules should be clearly stated: either deduct first and then confirm the current period payable, or indicate the deduction details on the invoice and have both parties confirm.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>When the payment plan references the payable balance, effective claims must have been deducted. Otherwise, the purchaser commits to the payment date based on the 'undeducted balance,' finance issues the invoice based on the 'deducted balance,' and the supplier once again believes that the main factory is untrustworthy. The audit sampling standard can be fixed: choose any payment and see if it can reach the claim business key within three steps; if it cannot, the key has not been hardcoded.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>SRM Supply Solution: Quality Collaboration and Reconciliation\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Incoming Material and Supplier Quality Closed Loop\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Reconciliation, invoicing, and payment with the same key\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Supplier Performance and Share\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Caside class=\"insight-toc\" aria-label=\"On this page\">\n          \u003Ch2>Contents\u003C\u002Fh2>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#扣款函很正式-应付里却没有这一行\">The debit letter looks formal—AP has no line\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#索赔单要能回答的五件事\">Five things a claim must answer\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#金额-能复算-才配自动抵扣\">Only recalculable amounts deserve auto-debit\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#三种-看起来已经扣了\">Three fake “already deducted” loops\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#从-IQC-长出来-别从空气里长出来\">Grow claims from IQC—not from thin air\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#跨法人-多币种-多工厂\">Cross-entity, multi-currency, multi-plant\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#绩效怎么挂才不逼人私下和解\">Score claims so people do not settle offline\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#一个品类-两周-三张数\">One category, two weeks, three metrics\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#验收时怎么抽\">How to sample at acceptance\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#和应付-开票-付款的同键要求\">Same-key rules with AP, invoice, and pay\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C\u002Faside>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta\">\n        \u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Want to apply this in your plant?\u003C\u002Fstrong>Resources has matching self-assessments and templates—or book a live demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta-actions\">\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=srm#selftest\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Self-assessment in Resources\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcases#case-srm\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">SRM acceptance case\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=srm\" class=\"btn\">Get a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C!-- next-step:BEGIN -->\u003Ca class=\"btn\" href=\"\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm\">Product solution: \u003Cspan>JEDP-SRM Supplier Relationship Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Ca class=\"btn btn-outline\" href=\"\u002Fres\u002Fresources\u002Fkits\u002F01-srm-supplier-onboarding-scorecard.html\">Matching resource kit: \u003Cspan>Supplier onboarding checklist + performance scorecard\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C!-- next-step:END -->\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-faq\" id=\"faq\">\n        \u003Ch2>FAQ\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-faq-sub\">Quick answers on this topic—still stuck?\u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=srm\">Contact\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"faq-list\">\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\" open>\n          \u003Csummary>What if the supplier rejects the debit?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Dispute status freezes automatic deductions, with evidence submission allowed within a limited time; if overdue, it escalates to joint review by Purchasing and SQE. Verbal settlements are not entered into the system, which amounts to encouraging disputes on the next order.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can a claim silently change the statement total?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Not recommended. The reconciliation bank should see the details of the claim deductions. Audit should be able to trace back from the payable differences to the claim forms and non-conforming forms.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can we debit before the 8D is closed?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Configurable 'Temporary Deduction Closing Adjustment'. Temporary deductions should also have a document number and a due review to avoid permanently unassigned accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can late-delivery penalties and quality debits share one document?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>It is recommended to categorize. Approvers, evidence packages, and accounting subjects are different; mixing them will confuse both the accounts and the suppliers during verification.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Do small claims still need the system?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Set a threshold. Under the threshold, batch summarization is possible, but a business key is still required; relying solely on emails will definitely be inconsistent after three months.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-related\">\n        \u003Ch2>Related reading\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-related-grid\">\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">QMS · Quality\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>Incoming material inspection is not the end point of the quality department, but the starting point of supplier quality management. From pending inspections, concession disputes, verbal corrections to 'evaluation is useless', breaking down tasks into triggers, determining separation, transmitting anomalies, and performance feedback in four places...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-05-21 · ~10 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Reconcile, invoice, and pay never match—three documents must share one business key\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The purchasing department says the goods have arrived, the warehouse says they have been stocked, and the finance department says the invoice doesn't match. Reconciliation confirmation, invoice verification, and payment applications need to fall under the same business key. Any discrepancies can be traced back to receipts, returns, and price versions, rather than reconciling the three parties at the end of the period...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-04-24 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The list of qualified suppliers is getting longer, but those willing to increase supply have not increased. Performance must originate from the same source as 8D, OTIF, and license red lines. Overdue rectifications can be visible to procurement. Observation, quantity limits, and withdrawal should have trigger conditions and contingency plans, rather than...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-04-27 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990640]