Skavio Flow: review missing due dates, invoice numbers and supplier references

A blank due date, invoice number or supplier reference calls for a source check—not an invented replacement. Skavio Flow turns invoices, orders, scans and text into structured results with source evidence and review warnings. Use it to support a reviewed handoff: establish what the document says, identify what remains uncertain, and check the results before exporting.

First, establish why the field is blank

A missing extracted value does not prove that information is missing from the invoice. The value may be visible in the source but absent from the result, obscured by a poor scan, or genuinely not stated. Flow provides source evidence and review warnings, but this does not mean every missing field is automatically detected. Compare the result with the original document and use a separate reviewer checklist to distinguish the following cases. These are recommended review categories, not verified Flow status labels.

• Absent from source: the supplied document does not state the value.
• Unreadable: the relevant text cannot be confirmed from the available copy.
• Not extracted: the value is legible in the source but missing from the structured result.

Confirm the invoice number—not the nearest reference

An invoice can contain several plausible-looking identifiers. Check the source label before accepting a number, then compare the full value, including prefixes, leading zeros and separators. A purchase order number is not a substitute for a missing invoice number. OpenPeppol BIS Billing 3.0 defines the invoice number as the invoice’s unique identifier and requires its presence. That is Peppol-specific context, not a universal legal conclusion about every supplier document. For a Flow review, the practical rule is narrower: accept the invoice identifier only when the source supports it. If it cannot be confirmed, record the uncertainty and seek clarification rather than copying another reference into the field.

Separate an explicit due date from payment terms

A blank due-date field deserves a second look at the payment wording. An invoice may state a calendar date, describe payment terms, or provide neither. These are different situations and should not be collapsed into a guessed date. Peppol defines the payment due date separately from payment terms. For a positive amount due, its rules require either a due date or payment terms; a blank explicit date alone therefore does not establish a Peppol validation failure. For example, a fictional invoice stating “30 days from receipt” does not establish an exact calendar deadline unless the relevant receipt date is known. Do not silently replace that wording with invoice date plus 30 days. In your Flow field design and review checklist, keep the stated terms distinct from any date calculated through a separately authorized business process.

Give “supplier reference” a precise meaning

“Supplier reference” is too broad unless the team agrees what it identifies. Peppol distinguishes the seller identifier, legal registration identifier and VAT identifier. It also distinguishes a purchase order issued by the buyer from a sales order issued by the seller. Flow supports custom extraction fields and saved company workflows. Use these capabilities to define separate, clearly named fields for the references your team needs, rather than asking one field to hold unrelated identifiers. During review, retain the source label in your notes when its meaning is uncertain.

• Supplier identifiers: specify whether the field means a seller identifier, registration number or VAT identifier.
• Buyer purchase order reference: keep it separate from the supplier’s invoice number.
• Seller sales order reference: do not merge it with the buyer’s purchase order reference.

Correct supported values, then review the export

When the source is legible, use it to resolve the discrepancy. When it is incomplete or unreadable, request clarification or a better copy instead of manufacturing a value. Keep unresolved questions visible in the team’s handoff checklist; do not assume an empty exported cell explains itself. An internal acceptance test on October 1, 2026, using two synthetic PDF invoices demonstrated scalar-field correction followed by regenerated results without a second extraction job. This was a narrow product check, not a customer result or a broad accuracy benchmark. Flow supports XLSX document and line-item worksheets, CSV and JSON. Before handing an export to accounting, check that confirmed identifiers remain intact, payment terms have not become unsupported dates, and unresolved references have a documented review decision. Producing a structured file is not the same as approving its contents.

Open Skavio Flow to extract and review your supplier invoice fields before exporting. →