- Who is this for?
- Carriers, sales administration, billing and transport operations teams
- Question addressed
- Check the shipments and amounts a customer proposes to retain before invoicing.
Key takeaways
- The document title is not enough: its place in the workflow, issuer and contract determine how it should be controlled.
- A working pre-invoice and a self-billed invoice are different objects; the latter is an invoice issued under a billing mandate.
- Reconciliation takes place line by line, using references, performed-service facts, the pricing rule and the version of every source.
- A missing extra or different amount must be classified before approval, correction or challenge.
- Closure retains the decision, its owner, the action taken and the outcome actually observed.
First identify the document and its scope
In this guide, “pre-invoice” means a working statement sent by a customer or contracting party to propose the shipments and amounts to be retained before an invoice is issued. That label does not have one universal effect. The actual document, contract and agreed workflow must be examined before deciding how to record it or respond to it.
Self-billing is different. In France, it describes an invoice physically issued by the customer in the supplier’s name and on the supplier’s behalf, under the framework set out in Article 289 of the French General Tax Code. A team should therefore not handle a document as a draft when it is already an invoice. Any uncertain tax classification should be confirmed for the organisation and transaction concerned.
| Control question | Working pre-invoice | Self-billed invoice |
|---|---|---|
| What is its role? | Propose a scope and amounts before invoicing. | Record an invoice issued by the customer in the carrier’s name and on its behalf. |
| What should be checked first? | Period, included shipments, calculation rules and approval procedure. | Applicable mandate and process, invoice identity, lines, amounts and intended accounting treatment. |
| What does a difference mean? | A point to classify before accepting or challenging the statement. | A point to handle through the invoice control and correction workflow. |
| What record should be retained? | Received version, annotations, reply and any revised version. | Received invoice, controls, decision, any correction and accounting trail. |
A carrier-side reconciliation checklist
A useful control does more than compare the statement total with expected revenue. It links each proposal to the relevant transport record and explains why the line matches, remains undecidable or needs more investigation.
| Step | What to reconcile | Exit condition |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Frame the review | Issuer, legal entity, period, currency, displayed taxes, version and statement status. | The document and expected workflow are identified. |
| 2. Check completeness | Completed shipments for the period against listed lines, including cancellations and duplicates. | Every record is present, excluded with a reason or flagged as missing. |
| 3. Match | Customer reference, carrier reference, route, dates, sites, vehicle or charging unit. | A line points to one record; ambiguous candidates are escalated. |
| 4. Verify performance | Statuses, actual dates, delivery evidence, waiting time, amendments and other relevant events. | The retained facts are sourced and missing evidence is visible. |
| 5. Rebuild the calculation | Base rate, unit, band, rate card, indexation, extra, rebate and rounding. | Every expected amount points to an applicable rule and version. |
| 6. Classify | Proposed value, reconstructed value, difference, possible explanation and evidence level. | The line is matching, incomplete, ambiguous, awaiting approval or confirmed under internal rules. |
| 7. Close | Authorised decision, reply sent, new version received and observed result. | The record retains the decision and evidence without confusing a detected amount with an obtained outcome. |
Fictitious example: an annotated pre-invoice before approval
The following example is entirely fictional. Customer TransLogis Industrie sends carrier Route Exemple a statement for June 2026. The annotations do not make any amount payable. They show how to separate established facts, rules that still need to be found and decisions that remain open.
| Received line | Proposed amount | Carrier reconciliation | Control annotation |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR-4182 · Lyon to Dijon · base rate | €680.00 | One record found; route and dates match; rate card V3 is attached to the contract. | Matches, subject to final confirmation of the contractual version. |
| TR-4182 · energy indexation | €74.80 | The formula is available, but the statement does not identify the index or period used. | Not reproducible: request the source and period without concluding that it is wrong. |
| TR-4210 · Lille to Reims · base rate | €625.00 | Two similar internal references exist; an email contains a destination amendment. | Ambiguous match: confirm the record and order version. |
| TR-4210 · dock waiting | €0.00 | A 55-minute event and timestamped evidence exist in the record. | Detected gap only: check the allowance, rule, required evidence and eligibility before making a request. |
Rebuild rates and extras without inventing a rule
The base rate may depend on a lane, zone, tier, charging unit, effective date or rate-card version. Extras may depend on a performed-service event and several cumulative conditions. Evidence of waiting, for example, establishes a fact; on its own, it does not establish that the time is chargeable.
Vigilo can connect the statement to the records, documents, events and validated rules within the agreed scope, then prepare a reproducible calculation. If a rate card is missing, two clauses appear applicable or the required evidence is unavailable, the record returns to the team with that context. The system does not complete the rule by assumption.
- retain the contractual document, effective date and version;
- separate the base rate, indexation, extras, rebate, tax and rounding;
- connect every condition to the fact or document that verifies it;
- expose missing values and competing rules;
- replay the calculation with the same inputs so another person can check it.
Classify the difference, prepare the response and verify the outcome
A difference may result from an incorrect match, another period, a missing shipment, a rate-card version, an undocumented event, a misread rule or presentation alone. The correct next step depends on that classification: accept, request evidence, escalate, propose a correction or prepare a documented challenge.
The reply should remain factual: affected line, received value, reconstructed value or condition, sources used, remaining uncertainty and requested action. Control continues after the reply until an observable result exists — a revised statement, accepted explanation, maintained disagreement or authorised closure. Only that outcome separates a detected difference from an amount actually corrected or recovered.
- 01Detected
A difference is visible, with no conclusion yet about its cause or whether anything is due.
- 02Documented
Relevant records, rules and evidence are assembled; missing items remain explicit.
- 03Classified
The cause and certainty level lead to an authorised next step.
- 04Decided
A person or validated rule accepts, escalates, corrects or challenges the line.
- 05Resolved
The reply, new version and actual effect are verified and retained.
Frequently asked questions
Direct answers
Is a customer pre-invoice already an invoice?
Not necessarily. Its actual role, wording, contract and agreed workflow must be examined. If the customer issues an invoice in the carrier’s name and on its behalf, it is a self-billing workflow and must be handled under the applicable rules.
Is an extra missing from the pre-invoice automatically owed?
No. Its absence is, at most, a difference to investigate. The event, applicable rule, thresholds, exclusions and required evidence must be confirmed before reaching a conclusion.
Can every line be approved automatically?
Only within a scope where matches, rules, evidence, thresholds and action permissions have been validated. Ambiguous, new, sensitive or unverifiable cases must return to the team.
Sources and methodology
This resource describes Axonovia's product approach based on transport workflows. The examples are illustrative and do not constitute a performance commitment or a universally applicable contractual rule.
- Article 289 of the French General Tax Code — invoice issuance by a customer in the supplier’s name and on its behalfPrimary source used only to distinguish self-billing under the French framework from a preparatory statement referred to as a pre-invoice.
Product review: Axonovia team · next review recommended before 31 August 2027 or following a material change in scope.