Assemble a multi-visit invoice pack around a visit register that defines the proposed billing scope. Each included visit should have a stable reference, supporting evidence, and a clear relationship to the draft invoice. The pack should also explain why relevant visits were excluded or held for review.
Begin with native reporting and document-linking options in the job platform. Simpro describes data-feed functions that can create or update operational records from incoming information. Confirm whether existing configuration can preserve the required links before adding a separate collection process.
Define the billing group first
Fictional Harbour Maintenance proposes one October invoice for customer C-77. The account includes three sites and six visits. Five visits are completed; the sixth is awaiting a replacement part. Grouping all files received during October would incorrectly include unfinished work and could omit a late-arriving report for an earlier completed visit.
| Visit | Site | Proposed treatment | Evidence status |
|---|---|---|---|
| V-201 | H-01 | Include | Report and sign-off available |
| V-202 | H-02 | Include after review | Report date conflicts |
| V-203 | H-03 | Hold | Follow-up work still open |
| V-204 | H-01 | Include | Current report available |
Use an agreed selection rule, such as identified completed visits approved for this billing run. A calendar period can help filter candidates, but it should not replace the business definition of what is billable. Staff must resolve the held items before finalizing the invoice scope.
Build a pack manifest
The manifest is an index of the evidence set. For each visit, list the job reference, site, visit date, report version, attachments, and any invoice-line relationship. Include the source system or file location so a reviewer can find the original evidence without searching a shared folder.
Record a pack version and creation time. If V-202 receives a corrected report, create a new pack version and identify which earlier checks are affected. A folder containing the latest-looking files is not a reproducible review record unless the exact selected versions are recorded.
Prevent repeated evidence from becoming repeated billing
The same report may arrive through the engineer app and by email. That is one visit with two copies of evidence, not two visits. Use stable visit IDs and document fingerprints where available, while retaining the history of how the files arrived.
Conversely, two visits can share the same site and date. Do not merge them merely because their filenames look similar. Compare visit references, work scope, and the authoritative job register. If previous invoices or concurrent drafts can include the same work, the review needs current allocation history to detect overlaps.
Keep exceptions visible in the summary
- Identify visits with missing or unreadable reports.
- Show site or PO conflicts beside the affected visit.
- Separate incomplete work from complete work awaiting paperwork.
- List any approved exception and its scope.
- Show excluded visits so staff can see what remains unbilled.
The summary should not imply that every included visit passed every check when one was accepted by exception. Customer-specific invoice policies, including published supplier requirements, illustrate why evidence expectations differ. Use the actual customer's agreed rules and keep their effective version in the pack.
Decide how late-arriving evidence enters the next review cycle. A report received after the pack cutoff should create a visible pending item, not silently change the contents of a pack another person has already reviewed.
Test completeness in both directions
For a pilot, compare the pack against the proposed billing register and compare the register back against the pack. Every included visit should have the required evidence; every included evidence item should belong to the intended billing scope. This catches both omissions and unrelated attachments.
Use fictional cases with repeated uploads, split visits, a revised report, and an excluded unfinished job. Measure false inclusions, missing visits, and review effort per pack and per visit. Clear Anvil's invoice evidence workflow can frame the review, while staff retain decisions about charges, submission, and customer acceptance.
Sources and further reading
AI-assisted research and writing, checked against the linked sources. Worked examples are fictional. Product features can change; confirm the details in your own account.