Automate PO and invoice matching by preparing the exceptions, not approving the payment.

Put the three records on one review surface.

A purchase order states what was ordered.

An invoice states what the supplier billed. A goods-received note or delivery record states what arrived, and a useful review needs all three in view.

Ask Strawberry to build a table with ordered quantity, received quantity, invoiced quantity, unit price, tax, delivery date, and a source link for each line. The output gives finance a short queue to investigate rather than three documents to re-read.

Separate a real discrepancy from an incomplete file.

Not every difference means the supplier is wrong.

A partial shipment, backorder, freight charge, credit note, or missing receiving record can produce the same red flag.

Have the review state what differs, the most likely explanation from the available evidence, and what document or owner is needed next. That turns a vague mismatch into an actionable exception.

Create a payment-review pack that can be audited.

The useful artefact is not a summary that says everything looks fine.

It is a compact pack that preserves the invoice number, PO number, line evidence, unresolved questions, and the reviewer’s decision trail.

Save the finished structure as a finance skill after your team has checked it across a normal close. A month-end routine can then assemble the same review pack from the selected documents without deciding which bills are paid.

Keep the payment decision outside the automation.

Matching prepares evidence; it does not replace delegated approval limits, segregation of duties, or a payment run review. Keep the recommendation clearly marked as pending while the finance owner verifies the supplier, amount, bank details, and approval path.

That boundary matters most when a document set looks complete. The final person should still know what will move, why it is allowed, and what proof supports it.

Frequently asked questions