Skavio Flow: checking repeated supplier names across multiple document batches

Skavio Flow’s custom fields and saved workflows help keep supplier fields consistent across successive document batches. That creates a useful starting point for checking repeated names—but a repeated name is not proof of a duplicate supplier or invoice. Use Flow to extract and review the fields, then compare the reviewed exports in a separate Excel workbook, keeping every candidate linked to its source.

1. Reuse the fields, not assumptions about the supplier

Start with a saved Flow workflow that requests the same supplier fields for each batch. Ask for the supplier name as printed, plus an address and identifiers where they appear in the document. Keep the invoice number separate from supplier identifiers: they answer different questions. Consistent field names make the later comparison easier. They do not establish that two records describe the same legal entity. A missing identifier should remain missing and be noted for review—not filled from a similar-looking name in an earlier batch.

• Request the supplier name as printed, preserving legal suffixes, accents and punctuation.
• Request the supplier address, VAT ID or other supplier identifier only where present.
• Reuse the same field definitions and instructions across successive batches.

2. Review the extracted data before combining batches

Check extracted supplier names and identifiers against Flow’s source evidence, paying attention to review warnings and ambiguous text. Correct a misread value only when the source supports the correction; leave an unclear identity unresolved. Export the reviewed results to XLSX or CSV and retain each original export. For this check, use document-level data rather than line-item rows: repeating one supplier name for every purchased item would inflate the counts. In a separate comparison copy, add the tracking columns below. These are proposed workbook columns, not verified automatic Flow fields.

• batch_id: a nonblank label that distinguishes each batch.
• source_document_ref: a nonblank reference that lets a reviewer locate the originating document.
• review_status and reviewer_note: columns for the eventual decision and supporting explanation.

3. Append the exports and preserve the original names

Load the document-level tables into Excel Power Query and use Append Queries as New to combine them. Microsoft documents that append matches columns by header name, not position. Where an input table lacks a column, its appended rows contain nulls in that column. Check the actual export headers first and align equivalent fields in your comparison copies. After appending, reconcile the row count with the input tables and investigate unexpected blanks. Load the combined data into an Excel worksheet and keep the reviewed supplier-name column unchanged. Add a separate comparison_name column for limited, documented cleanup. For example, if the supplier name is in A2, enter =TRIM(A2) in the corresponding comparison cell. TRIM removes leading and trailing ordinary spaces and reduces repeated ordinary spaces inside the name, but it does not remove nonbreaking spaces by itself. Treat further cleanup as a separate, documented decision, and do not automatically strip legal suffixes, accents or punctuation.

4. Find names that occur in more than one batch

Create a PivotTable from the combined comparison table. The purpose is to surface names appearing across batches, not simply names repeated within one batch. Exclude blank comparison names and send those documents to review separately. Arrange the fields as follows, then inspect names with positive counts in at least two batch columns. Do not count the Grand Total column as another batch. Refresh the source queries and PivotTable when you add new exports. This comparison is a proposed Excel workflow, not a native Flow matching feature.

• Rows: comparison_name.
• Columns: batch_id.
• Values: Count of source_document_ref, using the nonblank document-reference column.
• Treat each result as a review candidate: name-only comparison can miss spelling or OCR variations and group different entities together.

5. Resolve candidates with evidence, not automatic merges

Consider a fictional example: Batch A contains “Example Supply Ltd” and Batch B contains “ Example Supply Ltd ”. Ordinary-space cleanup makes the comparison names match. That identifies a pair to inspect; it does not yet prove a shared supplier identity. Compare the original documents and any available identifiers and address details before recording a decision. Now consider another fictional pair: both documents say “Example Parts Ltd”, but their supplier identifiers conflict. Record the pair as unresolved until the discrepancy is checked rather than assuming which identifier is wrong. Keep the original document rows and record the outcome in the comparison workbook. Repeated supplier names alone should not trigger supplier merging, invoice deletion or payment blocking. This workflow checks repeated supplier names; duplicate-invoice detection is outside its scope.

• Same supplier: record the corroborating evidence and reviewer note.
• Different suppliers: explain the distinction and retain both records.
• Unresolved: identify the missing or conflicting evidence and the next check needed.

Prepare your next reviewed supplier export with Skavio Flow →