Pilot COD settlement matching for one courier and one bank account

Finance can reconcile one courier manually, but each new file requires reformatting, AWB matching and another search through bank credits. The backlog is large enough to justify automation, yet the hardest cases still depend on judgement.

A bounded pilot should reproduce a completed manual reconciliation, then maintain an owned queue for the unresolved cases. Start with one courier account and a fixed period. Prove the financial bridge before allowing the workflow to prepare destination entries.

Define the first population and outputs

Choose a closed two-week period with agreed opening balances and enough later records to explain credits that settled after the period. Identify the scope of COD obligations, settlement currency, account and due-date rules. Do not combine different currencies or legal-entity accounts into one unexplained total.

Required inputs are order and AWB mappings, delivery/collection outcomes, remittance lines, deduction details, bank transactions and approved adjustments. Shiprocket's reporting guidance distinguishes remittance and order views, which can help identify the necessary exports in that platform. Shiprocket — Choosing scheduled reports.

The pilot should produce an obligation register, batch-level cash bridge, deduction review queue, unmatched-item queue and a traceable resolution history. The first version can stop at reviewed reconciliation. ERP posting is an additional controlled handoff.

Define identities that survive revisions

A file name is not a durable transaction identity. Preserve the source account, file/version, row reference where available, AWB, batch reference, currency and amount. Record when the source was extracted and which period it covers.

Use the source's genuine correction relationships when provided. If a revised statement replaces a previous amount, retain both and apply the supported replacement logic. If it adds another partial payment, preserve the additional allocation. A general “keep latest row per AWB” rule can lose legitimate split remittances.

Unidentified records should be held for investigation. Missing mappings must not be filled by a plausible order number generated from free text.

Test a bridge with independent expected answers

Use this illustrative pilot dataset after excluding pre-period obligations already settled. Opening outstanding obligation is ₹5,000; new confirmed obligations total ₹40,000. Finance has approved ₹1,000 of deductions for the example, and ₹42,500 of bank receipts is allocated to these same obligations. All amounts use one currency and the agreed closing cutoff.

The remaining amount is ₹5,000 + ₹40,000 − ₹1,000 − ₹42,500 = ₹1,500. That total is not yet a conclusion about overdue cash. Add the statement layer: suppose ₹43,000 of net remittances has been identified for the population.

The ₹1,000 and ₹500 cases need different evidence and due-date checks. Unidentified bank cash stays in a separate allocation queue until finance can link it to this population. A ₹500 receipt found after the cutoff can explain subsequent settlement without rewriting the original period-end report.

Have finance label expected outcomes independently. Keep some files outside configuration work so the evaluation includes unseen layouts or cases. Test combined failures too: a repeated file containing a revised deduction should not bypass either control.

A return after COD collection is another essential case. Record collection, courier settlement and any authorised customer refund separately. A later “returned” status does not by itself prove that the carrier never collected money or that the original settlement obligation disappeared.

Make uncertainty visible through the workflow

The operational owner confirms collection and delivery facts. The carrier account owner obtains missing statements and disputes charges. Finance owns cash allocation and accounting. The integration owner fixes import and recovery failures without changing the approved commercial result.

If a bank feed has already created the receipt in the ERP, the matching handoff should identify and allocate that existing receipt. Creating another cash receipt from the remittance would duplicate the money. Agree the exact destination action with finance before treating “ERP integration” as one generic export.

Access should be limited to the relevant account and role, including downloaded exports and evidence attachments. Use authorised test records and keep customer details that are unnecessary for matching out of the pilot dataset.

Compare automation with a fair baseline

Time the manual review of the same independently checked population. Record preparation, matching, exception investigation and final review separately. A tool that reduces import work but doubles investigation time may not improve the overall process.

Proposed acceptance conditions include correct treatment of every seeded material exception, repeatable batch totals, no duplicated cash allocation on rerun and no unreviewed financial entry. Report false matches, false exceptions and cases that still need external evidence.

Avoid judging the pilot only by its automatic-match percentage. A large straightforward batch can hide a small number of consequential errors. Show results by case type and amount as well as document count.

Recover without changing the financial story

When an ERP request times out, retain an “outcome unknown” state and check the destination using the stable reference. Do not generate a new reference merely to make the next submission succeed. If a destination entry exists, reconcile it; if the result remains uncertain, finance must keep the item open.

The stop procedure pauses new exports and preserves imports, approvals and queue history. Reconcile acknowledged and uncertain requests before resuming. Correct already-created entries through the ERP's approved process.

Expand after the first account is explainable

A useful first pilot gives finance a reproducible bridge and a queue it can own without the implementer interpreting every row. Add couriers only after their distinct formats, due rules and correction behaviour have been mapped and tested.

Next actions

1. Select one account and completed period, with approved opening balances.
2. Gather the full obligation, statement, deduction and bank population.
3. Label split, revised, duplicate and delayed cases before configuration.
4. Run shadow reconciliation, then test any approved destination handoff.
5. Review case-level accuracy and total effort before widening the scope.

Scope COD matching for one account using the order platform, settlement format and bank/ERP destination. State which mismatch currently takes the most investigation.