# Usage: curl -sSL https://seed.show/finance.accounts.payable | bash -s <install-path>
# <install-path> is the directory where the file should land.

set -euo pipefail
[ -z "${1:-}" ] && {
  echo "install requires a path: curl -sSL https://seed.show/finance.accounts.payable | bash -s <install-path>" >&2
  exit 1
}
TARGET="$1"
mkdir -p "$TARGET"
DEST="$TARGET/seed-fold.5kKDki.folded.md"

cat > "$DEST" <<'PORTDOWN_D5218442'
<!--
This is a `.folded.md` archive — a directory packed into one markdown
file. The markers below are load-bearing; don't edit them directly.

To unpack (requires bash — if you have no shell, tell the user):
  1. curl -sSLf https://fold.dom.vin/skill | bash -s <INSTALL_DIR>
  2. <INSTALL_DIR>/fold/scripts/unfold <this-file>
     (or: unfold <this-file>  if fold/scripts is on your PATH)
-->

---
fold: true
marker: f11d4d
at: 2026-05-07T16:16:03Z
root: seed-pack.WUOktZ
---

<!--fold:f11d4d@file path="README.md" mode="644"-->
# Accounts Payable Context

## What AP is actually managing

AP controls cash outflow timing and accuracy — paying the right amount to the right vendor at the right time, not early and not late. Early payment erodes working capital unnecessarily. Late payment incurs penalties, damages vendor relationships, and in critical supplier relationships can affect supply continuity. The job is precision on both dimensions simultaneously.

The financial objective isn't just "don't pay wrong." It's to optimize Days Payable Outstanding (DPO) — keeping cash in-house as long as payment terms allow, capturing early payment discounts only when the math justifies it, and never letting payables age past terms without a deliberate reason.

AP is a controlled disbursement function. The 3-way match is the core control that prevents unauthorized payments. Every AP process decision traces back to that control.

What AP is not: a rubber stamp on vendor requests. It is not accounts receivable. It does not own procurement (PO creation belongs to procurement), though AP depends on procurement's POs to function. It is not treasury (payment method and banking relationship management is treasury's domain, though AP submits payment files).

---

## The 3-way match and why it exists

The 3-way match reconciles three documents before releasing payment:

1. **Purchase Order (PO)** — what the company agreed to buy, at what price, from which vendor
2. **Receiving report (goods receipt)** — what was actually delivered and accepted
3. **Vendor invoice** — what the vendor is claiming is owed

All three must agree within tolerance before payment is approved. The match protects against:

- **Fraud** — fictitious vendors, duplicate invoices, inflated amounts, invoices for goods never ordered
- **Error** — pricing discrepancies, quantity mismatches, wrong goods accepted, billing against wrong PO
- **Contract violations** — payment terms different from PO, unauthorized charges, scope creep billed without approval

**Match variants:**
- **3-way match** (PO + receipt + invoice): full control; required for goods-based procurement
- **2-way match** (PO + invoice, no receipt confirmation): acceptable for services where physical receipt can't be confirmed; weaker as a control
- **1-way match** (invoice only): essentially no programmatic control; defensible only for pre-approved, petty-cash-equivalent amounts

**Tolerances matter.** Most companies configure match tolerances (e.g., ±$50 or ±2%) because exact-to-the-penny matching is impractical at volume. Exception management — what happens when the match fails — is where AP teams spend most of their time and where automation creates the most leverage. Best-in-class straight-through processing (STP) rates exceed 80%; above 20% exceptions indicates misconfigured ERP or vendor relationship problems (see sources.md for benchmark sources).

---

## The AP lifecycle

The full decision-stage breakdown is in `workflow.md`. Summary:

1. **PO creation (procurement)** — establishes the contract terms; a PO-backed AP process is a controlled AP process
2. **Goods receipt** — second leg of the 3-way match; logged in ERP by receiving team
3. **Invoice intake** — email, portal, EDI, or paper; OCR extracts key fields
4. **3-way matching** — STP or exception queue; exception type determines the action
5. **Approval routing** — non-PO invoices and PO overages route per delegation of authority (DOA)
6. **Payment scheduling** — released on due date unless early-pay discount math justifies earlier
7. **Vendor reconciliation** — statement-level periodic check against AP subledger
8. **1099 tracking** — eligibility flagged at vendor setup, not at year-end

---

## Payment terms math

**2/10 net 30** is the canonical example: 2% discount if paid within 10 days; full amount due within 30 days. The annualized return on capturing the discount:

```
Annualized return = (Discount % / (1 - Discount %)) × (365 / (Net days - Discount days))
2/10 net 30 = (0.02 / 0.98) × (365 / 20) ≈ 37.2% annualized
```

At 37% annualized, the early payment discount is almost always worth capturing if the company has the cash. The comparison: if borrowing costs (cost of capital) are below 37%, take the discount. A company with abundant cash and a 2/10 net 30 supplier that systematically pays on Day 30 instead of Day 10 is leaving money on the table.

**DPO optimization is not "pay as late as possible."** It is:
- Pay exactly on the due date, not before (unless discount math justifies earlier)
- Negotiate longer payment terms with strategic vendors (net 60, net 90) without sacrificing pricing
- Use early payment discounts selectively based on cost-of-capital comparison
- Use virtual cards and supply chain financing programs where vendors accept them (virtual cards generate cashback rebates for the payer)

The CFO wants DPO maximized; procurement wants vendor relationships preserved; AP lives in between.

---

## 1099 reporting

Vendors who are US-based individuals, sole proprietors, partnerships, or LLCs taxed as partnerships are subject to 1099-NEC reporting if the company paid $600+ for services during the calendar year.

AP owns 1099 compliance operationally: collecting W-9s at onboarding, maintaining vendor tax classification records, generating 1099-NEC forms at year-end (recipient deadline: January 31; IRS electronic filing deadline: January 31).

**Common failures:**
- Not collecting W-9s at vendor setup — makes January scramble inevitable
- Misclassifying vendor entity type (corporations are generally exempt from 1099 except attorneys and medical providers)
- Confusing 1099-NEC (non-employee compensation, box 1) with 1099-MISC (rent, royalties, other income — separate form, different thresholds)
- Missing the January 31 filing deadline: IRS penalty up to $630 per form for intentional disregard; scales with lateness

The right time to collect a W-9 is before the first payment, not in January when the deadline is two weeks away.

---

## What agents get wrong

### 1. Approving invoices without completing the 3-way match
The match is a fraud and error control, not a bureaucratic step. Routing invoices for approval without completing the match — or treating match failure as a minor exception — bypasses the primary internal control. Match exceptions require investigation before payment, not approval-then-reconcile-later.

### 2. Ignoring early payment discount math vs. DPO targets
Defaulting to "pay on due date" without evaluating a 2/10 net 30 discount in play leaves money on the table when the annualized return is favorable. Capturing every early payment discount without assessing DPO impact destroys working capital optimization. Correct behavior: evaluate the discount math, compare against cost of capital, decide.

### 3. Missing 1099 eligibility at invoice processing time
1099 eligibility should be evaluated at vendor setup, not year-end. An agent processing invoices without 1099 flags on vendor records will miss the year-end reporting obligation.

### 4. Treating all invoice exceptions the same
AP exceptions fall into distinct categories requiring different actions:
- **Price variance** (invoice price ≠ PO price) → vendor communication and possible PO amendment
- **Quantity variance** (invoiced qty ≠ received qty) → receiving confirmation or dispute
- **Missing PO reference** → approval routing, not match attempt
- **Duplicate invoice** (same number/amount/vendor) → hold and investigation before payment
- **Past-due vendor invoice** → assess late fees and relationship impact

Routing all exceptions to the same queue with the same priority is the mistake. Exception type determines the action.

### 5. Confusing invoice date, receipt date, and due date
Payment terms run from invoice date (usually) or receipt date (sometimes, per contract). An agent that calculates due dates from the wrong anchor will systematically pay early or late. The payment terms on the PO govern; the invoice terms are the vendor's claim, not the controlling document if they differ.

### 6. AI-specific failure modes
- **OCR hallucinations treated as confirmed data.** Automated invoice capture produces confidence scores for a reason. An agent that passes OCR-extracted fields directly into the match without a validation step is importing extraction errors into the control. Fields with low confidence scores require human verification before the match runs.
- **Approving round-number, first-invoice, or out-of-sequence vendor invoices without heightened scrutiny.** These are fraud signal patterns. A new vendor with a round-dollar first invoice, no PO reference, and a payment address that doesn't match the vendor master is a red flag, not a straight-through item.
- **Learning the wrong approval pattern.** If an agent is trained on historical approval data that includes exceptions approved under pressure or by the wrong approver, it inherits those exceptions as policy. AP automation requires the workflow rules to be configured explicitly, not inferred from historical behavior.
- **Confusing vendor statement reconciliation with the 3-way match.** These are different controls. The match happens at the invoice level before payment. Vendor statement reconciliation happens at the account level after payment. Performing the latter does not substitute for the former.

---

## What AI is changing

**High-confidence automation (AI is doing this well):**
- **Invoice capture and OCR.** AI-powered extraction from unstructured invoices (PDF, image, email) has materially improved field-extraction accuracy. Modern AP platforms report 80–95% automated extraction rates on structured invoice formats. The remaining 5–20% are structural exceptions: handwritten fields, non-standard layouts, multi-page complex invoices.
- **Duplicate invoice detection.** ML models trained on invoice fingerprints (vendor + invoice number + amount + date) catch duplicates that exact-match rules miss (e.g., same invoice resubmitted with a character change in the invoice number).
- **3-way match automation.** Rules-based matching has existed for decades; AI adds tolerance learning (what exceptions were previously approved and why) and anomaly scoring (invoices that look structurally unusual relative to vendor history).
- **Fraud detection.** Pattern recognition on vendor master changes (bank account updates, address changes shortly before large payments), payment amount distributions (Benford's law deviations), and new vendor behavior catches fraud patterns that manual review misses at volume.
- **Payment approval workflows.** Routing logic based on invoice characteristics, vendor history, and DOA thresholds is well-suited to automation; AI adds probabilistic routing for ambiguous cases.

**Stays human:**
- **Vendor relationship disputes.** When a vendor disputes a payment hold, the conversation requires relationship context, negotiation, and business judgment about supplier risk. An agent can surface the facts; a human owns the resolution.
- **Policy exceptions.** Every exception to the standard workflow requires a named human approver and a documented reason. AI can flag that an exception is being requested; it cannot authorize the exception — that is the internal control.
- **Strategic payment timing decisions.** In situations involving strained vendor relationships, supply continuity risk, or negotiated payment plans, the decision about when to pay (and what to communicate) is a business decision with relationship consequences. AP automation executes the decision; it doesn't make it.
- **1099 classification edge cases.** Entity classification and payment type classification under IRS rules has enough ambiguity (attorney payments, medical payments, foreign vendor withholding) that automated classification requires human review for non-standard cases.
<!--fold:f11d4d@file path="sources.md" mode="644"-->
# Accounts Payable Sources

**Note on benchmarks:** AP benchmarks (cost-per-invoice, exception rates, STP rates, DPO) vary significantly by industry, company size, and ERP maturity. A manufacturing company with high-volume PO-backed procurement has different benchmarks than a professional services firm with predominantly non-PO invoices. When citing a benchmark, always note its source, the industry/size cohort it covers, and the year. The sources below are where to find current, segmented benchmark data — don't rely on numbers from this file without checking current editions.

---

## Industry benchmarking and best practices

**IOFM (Institute of Finance and Management) — AP Best Practices**
- https://www.iofm.com/accounts-payable/
- The practitioner authority for AP operations. Publishes the AP & P2P Conference content, certification programs (APM, APP), and research reports on automation adoption, exception rates, STP rates, and cost-per-invoice benchmarks. The most widely cited source for AP operational standards.

**APQC Open Standards Benchmarking — Accounts Payable**
- https://www.apqc.org/benchmarking-portal/osb/detail/manage-accounts-payable
- APQC's Open Standards benchmarking database tracks AP metrics by industry and company size: cost-per-invoice processed, invoices processed per FTE, cycle time from invoice receipt to payment, straight-through processing rate. Median and top-quartile data. Used for internal AP benchmarking and efficiency improvement programs.

**Ardent Partners — AP Metrics That Matter / State of ePayables**
- https://ardentpartners.com/
- Annual State of ePayables report benchmarks AP automation adoption, STP rates, exception rates, and early payment discount capture rates. Search "State of ePayables" for the current year's report. Widely cited in AP transformation projects.

---

## Tax and regulatory

**IRS 1099-NEC — Nonemployee Compensation**
- https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1099-nec
- Current form, instructions, and filing requirements. Box 1 threshold: $600. Electronic filing deadline: January 31. AP teams use this for vendor payments subject to reporting — primarily US-based non-corporate service providers.

**IRS 1099-MISC — Miscellaneous Information**
- https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1099-misc
- Rents, royalties, medical/healthcare payments, attorney payments, prizes. Separate from 1099-NEC; different boxes and different thresholds for some income types. AP needs to distinguish which payments route to NEC vs. MISC.

**IRS Publication 1220 — Specifications for Electronic Filing of 1099s**
- https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1220.pdf
- Technical specifications for FIRE (Filing Information Returns Electronically) system submissions. Required for filers submitting 250+ forms electronically (mandatory for large filers).

**IRS W-9 Instructions — Request for Taxpayer Identification Number**
- https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-9
- The form AP collects from vendors at onboarding to establish tax classification, TIN, and 1099 eligibility. Instructions clarify entity type classifications (which are exempt from 1099 reporting) and backup withholding requirements when W-9 is not provided.

---

## Accounting standards

**FASB ASC 420 — Exit or Disposal Cost Obligations** *(note: accounts payable recognition falls under ASC 210 / 405)*
- AP recognition under US GAAP: a liability is recorded when the obligation exists and the amount is determinable (ASC 405-20). Payables are derecognized when settled or legally released.
- ASC 210-10-45: Balance sheet classification — current vs. non-current
- https://asc.fasb.org (search "405" for extinguishment of liabilities; "210" for balance sheet)

**FASB ASC 230 — Statement of Cash Flows**
- https://asc.fasb.org
- AP changes flow through operating activities in the indirect method cash flow statement. An increase in AP is a source of cash (company is holding supplier cash longer); a decrease is a use. Relevant when AP changes affect working capital reporting and free cash flow analysis.

---

## AP automation platform methodology resources

**Tipalti — AP Automation Documentation and Blog**
- https://tipalti.com/resources/
- Tipalti is a leading AP automation platform for mid-market companies. Their resource library covers mass payment processing, global vendor onboarding, tax compliance (1099, VAT), payment method optimization, and fraud controls. Useful for understanding how modern AP automation handles the invoice-to-pay workflow in practice.

**Bill.com — AP Product and Learning Resources**
- https://www.bill.com/resources
- Bill.com targets SMB and lower mid-market. Resources cover 2-way and 3-way matching, approval workflows, vendor portal setup, and integration with accounting systems (QuickBooks, NetSuite, Xero). Good reference for how AP controls are implemented in simpler ERP environments.

**Coupa — Spend Management and AP Best Practices**
- https://www.coupa.com/resources/
- Coupa is enterprise-grade (P2P — procure-to-pay). Their methodology content covers supplier management, PO compliance rates, touchless invoice processing (STP), and the Coupa Business Spend Management benchmark reports. Enterprise AP benchmarks differ significantly from SMB; Coupa's data skews to Fortune 500 and large mid-market.

**SAP Concur — Invoice Management**
- https://www.concur.com/en-us/accounts-payable
- SAP Concur is widely deployed at large enterprises. Their AP content covers invoice capture, PO matching, approval workflows, and integration with SAP ERP. Relevant when the question involves SAP-ecosystem AP operations.

---

---

## AI and AP automation

**IOFM — AP Automation and AI Research**
- https://www.iofm.com/accounts-payable/automation/
- IOFM tracks automation adoption rates, STP benchmarks, and AI use cases in AP specifically. More practitioner-focused than vendor marketing. Look for their annual benchmarking reports on AI-powered invoice processing and exception handling.

**Ardent Partners — CPO Rising / AP Automation**
- https://ardentpartners.com/
- Publishes research on AP automation ROI, AI adoption in finance functions, and the impact of machine learning on exception rates and duplicate detection. Their "State of ePayables" report is the most-cited annual benchmark for automation metrics.

**Gartner — AP Automation Market Guide**
- https://www.gartner.com/en/finance/topics/accounts-payable-automation
- Enterprise-focused analysis of AP automation vendors (Coupa, Tipalti, SAP Concur, Basware, Medius). Useful for understanding where AI is being deployed in enterprise AP stacks and what capabilities are differentiated vs. commoditized.

---

## How to use these sources

1. For **operational benchmarks** (cost-per-invoice, exception rates, STP rates): APQC Open Standards + Ardent Partners State of ePayables — use current-year editions; numbers shift as automation adoption increases
2. For **AP process standards and practitioner guidance**: IOFM
3. For **1099 compliance**: IRS forms pages directly — always check the current-year instructions; the mandatory e-filing threshold dropped to 10 forms effective 2024 (was 250); thresholds and deadlines can change annually
4. For **accounting treatment** of payables (recognition, derecognition, balance sheet classification): asc.fasb.org, topics 210 and 405
5. For **platform-specific AP automation workflows**: Tipalti (mid-market), Bill.com (SMB), Coupa (enterprise) — each reflects their customer base's typical process design, so match the source to the company size
6. For **AI/automation capabilities and vendor landscape**: Ardent Partners State of ePayables + Gartner AP Automation Market Guide
<!--fold:f11d4d@file path="workflow.md" mode="644"-->
# AP Workflow

The AP lifecycle as a decision framework. Each stage has decision criteria, failure modes, and timing requirements. The sequence is not optional — dependencies between stages are hard.

---

## Stage 1: Invoice receipt

**What happens:** Invoice arrives via email, vendor portal, EDI, or paper. The intake system captures it and routes it for processing.

**Decision criteria:**
- Does the invoice have a PO reference number? If yes → match workflow. If no → non-PO approval workflow.
- Is the vendor in the approved vendor master? If no → vendor onboarding required before payment can proceed.
- Is the invoice a duplicate? Check: same vendor + same invoice number + same amount. Duplicate = immediate hold.
- Is the vendor's W-9 on file? If no → flag for collection before payment (1099 compliance requirement).

**Failure modes:**
- **Intake bottleneck:** Paper invoices or email-only submission without a vendor portal creates manual data entry volume that doesn't scale. Exception rate downstream is correlated with intake quality.
- **Missing PO reference:** A high volume of invoices arriving without PO references signals a procurement compliance problem (purchases happening outside the PO system). The symptom is AP exceptions; the root cause is upstream.
- **Duplicate invoice fraud:** Vendors occasionally resubmit paid invoices with minor character changes. Exact-match duplicate checks miss these; probabilistic matching (same vendor + similar amount + close date) is required.

**Timing:** Invoices should be logged and routed within 1 business day of receipt. Invoice aging begins at receipt, not at the start of processing.

---

## Stage 2: PO matching (3-way match)

**What happens:** The system attempts to match the invoice against the referenced PO and the goods receipt in the ERP.

**Decision criteria:**
- Does the invoice PO number match an open PO in the system?
- Does the vendor on the invoice match the vendor on the PO?
- Does the invoiced price match the PO unit price, within tolerance?
- Does the invoiced quantity match the received quantity on the goods receipt, within tolerance?
- If all legs match within tolerance → straight-through processing (STP). Route to payment queue.
- If any leg fails → exception queue. Exception type determines the next action (see Stage 4).

**Match tolerance examples:**
- Price tolerance: ±$50 or ±2% of line item, whichever is smaller
- Quantity tolerance: ±1 unit for discrete goods; ±5% for bulk/measured goods
- Each company configures these in the ERP; there is no universal standard

**Failure modes:**
- **PO not found:** Vendor referenced a wrong or closed PO. Requires vendor communication and PO confirmation before matching can proceed.
- **Goods receipt not posted:** Invoice arrived before the receiving team posted the receipt. The invoice is not an exception — it's early. Hold the invoice until the receipt posts; do not release payment without the goods receipt.
- **Price variance:** Vendor billed at a different unit price than the PO. Common causes: price escalation clauses not updated in the ERP, vendor billing an amended price not reflected in a PO change order. Requires PO amendment or vendor credit.
- **Quantity variance:** Vendor billed for more than was received. Requires confirmation from receiving (was there a partial shipment? A return?) before any payment is made.

**For services (2-way match):** Physical goods receipt is replaced by service acceptance documentation (signed statement of work completion, milestone acceptance, or contract confirmation). The "receipt" is a document, not a physical transaction — but it must exist before payment is released.

**Hard dependency:** Payment cannot be scheduled until the match is complete. An invoice in the exception queue is not payable.

---

## Stage 3: Approval routing

**What happens:** Invoices that don't match a PO, or that exceed the PO amount, or that require a policy exception, route to an approver per the company's Delegation of Authority (DOA).

**Decision criteria:**
- Is there a PO? If yes and match is clean → no approval step required (the PO was the pre-approval).
- If no PO or PO overage → route to the cost center owner or department head per DOA thresholds.
- DOA threshold examples:
  - Under $500: any manager can approve
  - $500–$5,000: department director
  - $5,000–$25,000: VP
  - $25,000+: CFO or CEO
- Is the vendor new (first invoice from this vendor)? → flag for additional scrutiny regardless of amount. First-invoice risk is higher than repeat-vendor risk.
- Is the invoice payment address different from the vendor master? → hold; escalate to AP management. Bank account or address changes on vendor master require out-of-band verification (phone call to the vendor's known contact, not email — email can be spoofed).

**Failure modes:**
- **Approval bottleneck:** Invoices sitting in approver inboxes age against their due dates. An invoice approved on Day 28 of a net-30 term leaves 2 days to process and release payment. Build escalation logic: if not approved within 5 business days, escalate to the approver's manager.
- **Wrong approver:** Routing based on outdated org charts or cost center assignments that don't reflect current organizational structure. The DOA must be maintained; stale routing produces approvals by people with no business knowledge of the spend.
- **Retroactive PO creation:** Approver approves the invoice and asks AP to "create a PO after the fact." This is a control failure, not a workaround. Retroactive POs should be flagged, approved by a controller or CFO, and documented as exceptions — not treated as normal workflow.

**Timing:** Approval SLA should be defined per threshold tier. A $500 invoice waiting 10 days for approval from a director is a process failure, not an unavoidable delay.

---

## Stage 4: Exception handling

**What happens:** Invoices that failed the 3-way match or triggered a hold enter the exception queue. Exception type determines the resolution path.

**Decision criteria by exception type:**

| Exception type | Required action | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Price variance (invoice > PO) | Contact vendor for credit memo or issue PO change order | AP + Procurement |
| Price variance (invoice < PO) | Acceptable; match to PO price and release | AP |
| Quantity variance (invoiced > received) | Confirm with receiving; dispute overage with vendor | AP + Receiving |
| Quantity variance (invoiced < received) | Confirm partial shipment or backorder; hold balance | AP + Receiving |
| Missing PO reference | Route to department head for approval per DOA | AP + Department |
| Duplicate invoice | Hold; confirm with vendor; do not pay until original payment status confirmed | AP |
| Wrong vendor | Hold; correct vendor master or return to vendor | AP |
| Goods receipt not posted | Hold invoice; alert receiving team; escalate if receipt is overdue | AP + Receiving |
| New vendor, no W-9 | Hold payment; request W-9 before releasing any payment | AP |

**Failure modes:**
- **All exceptions treated equally:** Priority should be: duplicate invoices and fraud indicators first, pending receipt posts second, price/quantity variances third. Mixing them in a single undifferentiated queue delays resolution of high-priority exceptions.
- **Exception aging:** An exception that sits unresolved for 15+ days is not just an operational delay — it may become a late payment, triggering penalties or damaging vendor relationships. Exception queues need age-based escalation.
- **Resolving exceptions by overriding the control:** "Just pay it, I'll fix the PO later" is an audit finding waiting to happen. Exceptions are resolved by fixing the underlying mismatch, not by bypassing the match.

**Timing:** Exception resolution target is 3–5 business days from exception creation. Beyond 10 business days without resolution requires escalation to AP management.

---

## Stage 5: Payment scheduling

**What happens:** Matched and approved invoices are added to the payment run queue. Payment is released based on due date and payment method.

**Decision criteria:**
- What are the payment terms on the PO? (Net 30? Net 60? 2/10 net 30?)
- Is there an early payment discount? If yes: calculate annualized return and compare against cost of capital. `2/10 net 30 ≈ 37% annualized` — almost always worth taking if cash is available.
- What payment method does the vendor accept? ACH, check, wire, virtual card?
  - Virtual card: preferred if vendor accepts it; generates cashback rebate for the payer (typically 1–2% of transaction value)
  - ACH: low-cost, appropriate for most domestic vendor payments
  - Wire: higher cost; use for international payments or large urgent amounts
  - Check: highest cost, slowest, most fraud-prone; minimize
- Is this vendor in a country with withholding tax requirements? Foreign vendor payments may require withholding under IRS rules (30% withholding on US-source income to foreign vendors without a valid W-8BEN on file).

**Payment term anchor:** Payment terms run from invoice date (standard) or receipt date (if the contract specifies). The PO terms govern. If the vendor's invoice states different terms, the PO terms control — unless a specific contract amendment changes them.

**Failure modes:**
- **Paying from vendor invoice date when the contract specifies receipt date:** Systematically shortens the effective payment window. Check the contract.
- **Missing early payment discounts:** AP teams that run weekly payment batches and don't evaluate discount windows leave annualized returns of 30%+ on the table for vendors offering 2/10 net 30.
- **Paying too early without discount:** Paying on Day 5 of a net-30 invoice with no discount offering is a free loan to the vendor. DPO optimization requires discipline on release date.
- **Single payment method for all vendors:** Some vendors will accept virtual cards; many AP teams don't offer it systematically. Each virtual card payment that could have been check is a missed rebate.

**Timing:** Payment runs are typically daily (for ACH/wire) or twice-weekly (for check). Payment should release on the due date — not 1–2 days early (cash drag) and not 1–2 days late (penalty risk).

---

## Stage 6: Vendor reconciliation

**What happens:** AP compares the vendor's statement of account against the AP subledger. Catches missed invoices, duplicate payments, unapplied credits, and discrepancies.

**Decision criteria:**
- Does the vendor's statement balance match the AP subledger balance for that vendor?
- Are there invoices on the vendor's statement not in the AP subledger? (Missed invoices — may be accruals)
- Are there payments in the AP subledger not reflected on the vendor's statement? (Timing — allow 5 business days; beyond that, investigate)
- Are there open credits on the vendor's statement not applied in the subledger? (Unapplied credits — apply before next payment run)

**Failure modes:**
- **Reconciling only at year-end:** For strategic or high-volume vendors, monthly reconciliation is the standard. Annual reconciliation is too infrequent to catch errors before they compound.
- **Ignoring vendor credits:** A vendor credit that sits unapplied for 6+ months often becomes unrecoverable. Credits should be applied to the next payment or converted to a refund if no future invoices are expected.
- **Treating the vendor's statement as authoritative:** The AP subledger is the company's record. If the vendor's statement and the subledger disagree, investigate both sides — the error could be on either.

**Timing:** Monthly for strategic and high-volume vendors. Quarterly at minimum for lower-volume vendors. Always before period-end close (see accounting.month.end context).

---

## Stage 7: 1099 tracking

**What happens:** Throughout the year, AP tracks cumulative payments to vendors who may be subject to 1099-NEC or 1099-MISC reporting. At year-end, forms are generated and filed.

**Decision criteria:**
- At vendor setup: Is the vendor a US-based individual, sole proprietor, partnership, or LLC taxed as a partnership? If yes → 1099-eligible; collect W-9 before first payment.
- Is the vendor a corporation? Generally exempt from 1099, except attorneys (report all payments, regardless of entity type) and medical/healthcare providers.
- Does cumulative annual payment to this vendor reach $600 in services? → 1099-NEC required.
- Is this a payment for rent, royalties, or other non-service income? → 1099-MISC, not 1099-NEC. Different form, different box.

**Year-end sequence:**
1. Run vendor payment report filtered to 1099-eligible vendors.
2. Confirm W-9 is on file for each vendor with cumulative payments ≥ $600.
3. For missing W-9s: contact vendor immediately (December is the last viable window).
4. Generate 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC forms by mid-January.
5. Mail to recipients by January 31.
6. File with IRS electronically by January 31 (mandatory for 10+ forms under current IRS rules; check current-year threshold — the IRS lowered it from 250 to 10 effective 2024).

**Failure modes:**
- **Not flagging 1099 eligibility at vendor setup:** Creates a year-end scramble to classify vendors, collect W-9s under time pressure, and identify payments that may have been miscategorized.
- **Misclassifying attorney payments:** Attorney fees are 1099-reportable regardless of entity type (individual, partnership, or corporation). This exception trips up AP teams that assume corporations are always exempt.
- **Filing 1099-NEC for payments that belong on 1099-MISC:** Rent paid to a landlord goes on MISC, not NEC. Software subscription fees to an individual developer go on NEC. The distinction is the payment type, not just the vendor type.

**Timing:** W-9 collection: at vendor setup. Year-end reporting: forms to recipients by January 31; IRS filing by January 31.

---

## Stage 8: Period-end accruals

**What happens:** At period close, AP records accruals for goods or services received but not yet invoiced (unvouchered receipts). This ensures expenses are recorded in the period they were incurred, per matching principle.

**Decision criteria:**
- Are there goods receipts in the ERP with no corresponding invoice? → Accrue at PO price.
- Are there contracts with known consumption in the period but no invoice yet received? → Accrue at contractual rate × measured consumption.
- Are there recurring services (SaaS subscriptions, utilities, consulting retainers) with an outstanding period not yet invoiced? → Accrue at the contract amount for the period.

**Accrual estimation hierarchy (when exact amounts unavailable):**
1. Vendor quote or PO amount
2. Contractual rate × measured consumption
3. Prior-period actuals adjusted for known volume or rate changes
4. Department head estimate with documented basis

**Failure modes:**
- **Not accruing unvouchered receipts:** Understates period expenses; inflates operating income in the current period; creates a catch-up expense in the following period when the invoice arrives.
- **Double-counting:** Accruing an amount in one period and not reversing the accrual before posting the actual invoice in the next period creates a duplicate expense. Accruals should have corresponding reversal entries set up at creation.
- **Over-accruing:** Conservative accruals that significantly exceed actual invoices create reversals that inflate the following period's income. Accrual estimates should be based on best available evidence, not conservatism.

**Timing:** Accrual entries must post before period close (Day +3 in a standard month-end close calendar). See accounting.month.end for the close calendar and hard dependencies.

---

## Hard dependencies summary

| Later step | Must wait for |
|---|---|
| 3-way match | Goods receipt posted in ERP |
| Payment scheduling | Match complete OR approval complete (for non-PO invoices) |
| Payment release | Payment scheduled AND due date reached |
| Vendor reconciliation | Payment run posted |
| 1099 generation | Full calendar year payment data, W-9s on file |
| Period-end accrual | Period cut-off enforced |
| Accrual posting | AP subledger closed for prior period |

An AP process that runs these steps out of order produces errors that require correction after the fact — the most expensive outcome in any AP workflow.
<!--fold:f11d4d@end-->
PORTDOWN_D5218442

# ── post ──
MARKER=$(awk '/^---$/ { f++; if (f==2) exit; next } f==1 && /^marker:[[:space:]]/ { sub(/^marker:[[:space:]]+/, ""); print; exit }' "$DEST")
[ -z "$MARKER" ] && { echo "seed: archive has no marker — corrupt" >&2; exit 1; }
awk -v m="$MARKER" -v outdir="$TARGET" '
  BEGIN {
    # Match <!--fold:<m>@file path="X"--> with an optional mode attr after
    # the path (fold emits  mode="644"  on executables).
    file_re = "^<!--fold:" m "@file path=\"([^\"]+)\"( mode=\"[0-9]+\")?-->$"
    end_re  = "^<!--fold:" m "@end-->$"
  }
  $0 ~ end_re { if (current) close(current); exit }
  $0 ~ file_re {
    if (current) close(current)
    line = $0
    sub(/^<!--fold:[^@]+@file path="/, "", line); sub(/".*$/, "", line)
    current = outdir "/" line
    dir = current; sub(/\/[^\/]*$/, "", dir)
    if (dir != current) system("mkdir -p \"" dir "\"")
    printf "" > current
    next
  }
  current { print >> current }
' "$DEST"
SEED_EXTRACTED=$(find "$TARGET" -type f -not -path "$DEST" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)
if [ "$SEED_EXTRACTED" = "0" ]; then
  echo "seed: archive contained no files — refusing to delete the source" >&2
  echo "  archive preserved at: $DEST" >&2
  exit 1
fi
rm -f "$DEST"

echo "" >&2
echo "✓ seed unpacked → $TARGET ($SEED_EXTRACTED files)" >&2
find "$TARGET" -type f | sort | while IFS= read -r _sf; do
  echo "  ${_sf#${TARGET}/}" >&2
done
echo "" >&2
if [ -f "$TARGET/SKILL.md" ]; then
  echo "This seed contains a skill (SKILL.md). Install it in your agent's skills directory." >&2
  echo "" >&2
fi
echo "Install the seed skill if not already installed:" >&2
echo "  https://seed.show/skill" >&2
echo "" >&2
echo "Publisher prompt:" >&2
sed 's/^/  /' >&2 <<'__SEED_PROMPT_END_AC1F2B__'
AP domain map for finance.accounts.payable. README.md covers what AP is, the 3-way match, payment terms math (2/10 net 30), 1099 triggers, what agents get wrong (including AI-specific failure modes), and what AI is changing in AP. workflow.md is the AP lifecycle as a decision framework: invoice receipt → PO matching → approval routing → exception handling → payment scheduling → vendor reconciliation → 1099 tracking → period-end accruals — each stage with decision criteria, failure modes, and timing requirements. sources.md covers benchmarking, IRS, FASB, and platform sources. Benchmarks vary by industry and company size; always cite current-year editions from APQC or Ardent Partners.
__SEED_PROMPT_END_AC1F2B__
exit 0