Is it supported by the document trail?
We rebuild the chain: PO, ASN, signed POD, invoice, promo agreement, price list, credit note, and prior remittance. Then we see whether the claim actually ties back to it.
Asia-based evidence desk for Australian FMCG suppliers
Most short-paysgo unchecked.
You get paid short. The retailer files it under promo, short-delivery, DIFOT, shrinkage, scan-back, or a prior credit. The proof is real. It is just scattered across portals, PODs, POs, invoices, promo agreements, emails, and old remittances. So the deduction gets written off, argued too late, or disputed without the pack to back it. We rebuild the evidence chain behind every line.
Send one redacted remittance
One remittance in. One page back. No pitch. The findings are factual. Code points are context, not legal advice.
One remittance, examined
This is what comes back.
Every deduction lands in one of a few places: supportable, missing proof, worth challenging, or Code-sensitive. Not every claim is wrong. The ones worth reviewing don’t announce themselves.
DeductionRetailer’s reasonAmountVerdict
- Short-delivery claimINV-4471Qty received under invoiced−$3,120Missing proof
- Promo scan deductionPROMO-W32Scan claim past funding cap−$8,640Worth challenging
- Shrinkage chargeDN-2210In-store loss charged back−$1,450Code review
- DIFOT penaltyWK-32Delivery KPI penalty, wk 32−$2,200Missing proof
- Trading-terms rebateTT-Q2Agreed Q2 rebate−$5,900Supportable
Flagged for reviewof $21,310 deducted · illustrative, not an outcome estimate
$15,410See a sample teardown
Sample · illustrative, one line from a single remittance
- Deduction line
- Promo scan deduction · PROMO-W32 · −$8,640
- Claim type
- Promo funding claim
- First-pass verdict
- Worth challenging
- Evidence to pull
- Signed promo agreement, funding cap, scan report
- Likely gap
- The funding cap that limits the claim
- Dispute priority
- High. $8,640, 12 days left in the window.
- Suggested query
- “Please confirm the agreed funding cap for PROMO-W32. The scan deduction exceeds the funded amount we hold on file.”
- Code-sensitive
- A set-off needs written consent, or a supply agreement that allows it and a reasonable amount.
Who this is for
Built for one job. Honest about the rest.
Built for you if
- You sell into Coles, Woolworths, Metcash, ALDI, or Costco and take deductions you cannot fully explain.
- Your finance or AR team writes off short-pays because chasing them costs more than they return.
- Claims arrive across portals, debit notes, and remittances, and the proof lives somewhere else.
Not for you if
- You sell direct to consumers, not through grocery retailers.
- You already recover these claims in-house.
- You want self-serve software today. This starts as a service.
The method
A retailer claim is an assertion. We put every one through two tests.
Does it need Code-sensitive review?
Some deductions need legal or commercial review before anyone uses them externally. Shrinkage, set-offs, and wastage depend on the Code context, contract wording, and evidence trail.
Not every deduction is wrong. The money sits in the claims that fail one of those tests.
The claim ledger
Claim types worth checking before they age out.
Pull one recent remittance, debit note, or portal claim and run it against the list. Each line ends up in one of these stamps.
- Supportable
- Missing proof
- Worth challenging
- Code review
- Code-sensitive
01Missing proof
Short-delivery / shortfall
Did fewer units arrive than you billed? A shortfall claim must be made within 30 days of delivery. Late ones are challengeable.
- Signed POD
- ASN
- Invoice
- Received qty
02Worth challenging
Promo funding claim
Does the deduction match the agreed promo amount, cap, window, and store scope? Or has it crept past the deal?
- Signed promo agreement
- Funding cap
- Scan report
03Code review
Shrinkage charge
If an in-store loss shows on a remittance, flag it for Code-sensitive review before accepting or disputing it.
- Reason code
- Supply agreement
- Remittance line
04Missing proof
DIFOT / OTIF penalty
Did you actually deliver late or incomplete on the agreed measure? Or is the scorecard wrong?
- ASN
- Booked window
- Dock timestamp
- POD
05Worth challenging
Duplicate / already-credited
Has the same claim already been deducted, set off, or credited on a prior remittance?
- Prior remittance
- Debit note
- Credit note
06Code-sensitive
Wastage charge
Chargeable only if expressly agreed, reasonable, with a stated calculation, and the retailer took steps to reduce the cost.
- Wastage clause
- Calculation basis
- Batch evidence
07Supportable
Overpricing / price discrepancy
Did the invoice price differ from the agreed price list on the effective date? Which way?
- PO
- Agreed price list
- Effective date
08Worth challenging
Set-off against invoice
Was there written consent, or does the supply agreement allow the set-off and is the amount reasonable?
- Written consent
- Supply agreement
- Claim basis
09Missing proof
Post-audit claim
Does a historic claim, often raised one to two years later, match the original agreement and transaction trail?
- Original PO
- Price list
- Promo agreement
How the desk works
From a scattered remittance to a claim you can act on.
The evidence is real. It is just spread across portals, PODs, invoices, promo agreements, email, and your ledger. We reconstruct the chain and hand you the pack to dispute with.
- 01
Capture
Pull claims from retailer portals, remittance advices, debit notes, and accounting short-pays.
- 02
Classify
Sort every claim by type and reason code, so like is compared with like.
- 03
Match
Tie each claim to the PO, ASN, POD, invoice, promo agreement, price list, credit note, and prior remittance.
- 04
Assess
Mark each line supportable, contestable, or missing proof. Note Code-sensitive points for review.
- 05
Prioritise
Rank by dollar value and days left in the dispute window, so nothing ages into a write-off.
- 06
Evidence pack
Assemble claim, proof required, proof found, the gap, and suggested wording. One page per claim.
- 07
Dispute
Support the challenge through the normal retailer process. You correct an error, not pick a fight.
- 08
Track
Track retailer responses and surface the recurring claim patterns worth fixing upstream.
Where the Code affects the check
We use the Food and Grocery Code as context.
It commenced on 1 April 2025. The transition period ended on 1 April 2026. That makes old ‘normal’ deductions worth checking again: set-offs, shrinkage, wastage, listing payments, damage, shortfall, and payment.
Set-offsmay need written consent, or a supply agreement that allows the amount.
Shrinkagecan be Code-sensitive once the retailer has taken possession.
Wastagemay need express agreement, a stated calculation, and cost-mitigation evidence.
Shelf space & listingmay need express written agreement and a reasonable amount.
Damage & shortfallmay be time-limited after delivery.
Paymentdepends on the agreed payment timeframe.
For Coles, Woolworths, Metcash and ALDI claims, we flag Code-sensitive issues while checking the evidence chain. For Costco and other retailer or distributor claims, we still reconstruct the evidence chain, contract trail, claim reason, and dispute window.
Code references are review flags drawn from ACCC guidance, not legal advice.
What a teardown reconstructs
Six things we rebuild for every claim.
A deduction is a dispute about what happened. We put the record back together so the answer can be checked.
- 01
The claim
What the retailer deducted, and the reason they gave for it.
- 02
The rule
Which agreement, price list, or Code clause the claim depends on.
- 03
The proof
The PO, ASN, POD, invoice, promo agreement, and prior remittance that should support it.
- 04
The gap
Which document is missing, and what it would need to show.
- 05
The Code point
Where the Code may make the deduction worth legal or commercial review.
- 06
The clock
Days left in the dispute window before the claim ages into a write-off.
Pull one recent remittance and see what holds up.
Send one redacted remittanceFounding suppliers
We’re working with a handful of Australian FMCG finance teams to shape this.
We’re a small startup based in Asia. We’re not pretending otherwise. We want to see how claims and short-pays actually reach your finance team: where the evidence scatters, what you write off, and what a clean evidence pack would be worth.
In return: early access, direct product input, and founding pricing when we launch.
What partners do
- 01Walk us through how claims and short-pays reach you today (30 to 45 min)
- 02Share one or two redacted remittances so we can see the real shapes
- 03Review early evidence-pack teardowns and tell us where they fall short
- 04Help decide which claim types we automate first, and which we leave alone
Founding suppliers · early access
Send one redacted remittance. Get a one-page teardown back.
Leave your work email. We reply with a secure upload link for one redacted remittance. You get back a one-page evidence teardown. Each line marked supportable, missing proof, or worth challenging. Anything near its dispute window flagged. No pitch. No demo deck.
What you get back
- Every deduction line marked: supportable, missing proof, worth challenging, or Code-sensitive.
- The proof each contestable line would need to stand.
- The documents to pull from your own records.
- Claims ranked by dollar value and days left to dispute.
- Suggested wording for your internal review and the retailer query.
No recovery guarantee. Not legal advice. No system access for the first teardown. How we handle your document
What happens after you submit
- 1Submit your work email.
- 2We send a Google Drive upload link, shared only with that email.
- 3You upload one redacted remittance.
- 4We return a one-page evidence teardown.
- 5You decide whether there is enough value to keep going.
Not sure what to redact?
Hide
- Bank details
- Account numbers
- Personal names
- Phone numbers
- Signatures
- Unrelated supplier or customer details
Leave readable if you can
- Deduction reason
- Claim ID
- Date
- Retailer
- Invoice number
- Amount
- Promo or debit-note reference
- Dispute deadline
How we handle your document
We only use your document to prepare the teardown you asked for. It sits in a Google Drive folder shared with your email and ours, nowhere else. We do not use it to train public models. Ask and we delete it. NDA available on request.