BY NUMBER7 AI
FairlorryFreight operations · LR / invoice reconciliation
Find freight discrepancies while the operation can respond.
Fairlorry moved from reported 2–3 day manual reconciliation cycles toward continuous, exception-led checks. Lorry receipts, invoices and operating context stayed connected around the existing transport management system.
Continuous checking is not instant dispute resolution.
- System boundary
- Existing TMS
Transport operations remain in the existing system.
01 / The operation
The work that constrained the team.
Freight movement, paperwork and billing arrive on different clocks. Lorry receipts, invoices, delivery evidence, rates and weights must be reconciled before discrepancies become harder to investigate. The published account describes hundreds of LRs per day and manual batch matching that took 2–3 days.
The intervention addressed reconciliation around the existing TMS. It did not replace the transport operation.
02 / What changed
Connect a discrepancy to an owned follow-up.
Shipment evidence is assembled as it arrives, checked against configured commercial facts and routed for review. A detected mismatch can then support the appropriate debit or credit workflow.
Scroll across to compare the columns
| Work | Before | With AIdaptIQ |
|---|---|---|
| Cadence | Reconciliation in batches | Checks as evidence arrives |
| Matching | Manual comparison across documents | LR–invoice matching with configured checks |
| Discrepancies | Late discovery and follow-up | Earlier exception signals with evidence |
| Billing response | Manual debit/credit preparation | Evidence-led debit/credit workflow support |
- Invoice / LR weight
- 18,000 kg
- Delivery evidence
- 17,500 kg
- Unresolved difference
- 500 kg
Review delivery evidence and commercial responsibility before accepting an adjustment.
This explains the editorial example; it is not a measured customer recovery.The workflow and retained review
Commercial responsibility, missing delivery evidence, disputed damage and financial adjustments still require an appropriate person. A discrepancy is not automatically an accepted claim.
Document information, configured checks, human review and the final downstream outcome remain distinct. This case does not claim that every internal Number7 architecture module was deployed.
03 / Reported result
A change in checking cadence, not an instant settlement.
The reported change
The clearest reported result is the move from 2–3 day manual reconciliation cycles toward continuous processing. The published case describes a four-module layer around the TMS; no independently audited headcount or payback measurement is supplied.
Evidence basis: Number7 AI’s published customer account and retained case material. These results are not independently audited or universal guarantees. Read the customer evidence ledger · How to evaluate these results
Economics and interpretation
Reduced matching effort and earlier visibility of billing discrepancies are separate value mechanisms. Active labor time differs from elapsed waiting time; a detected adjustment is not recovered cash until the parties and accounting process accept it.
Evaluation model — not a realized resultReconciliation effort saved + accepted leakage recovery − platform, review and implementation costs. Track detected, accepted and recovered amounts separately.
04 / Your operation
Which discrepancies arrive after your billing window narrows?
Use a representative shipment population with LRs, invoices, delivery evidence and rate context. Measure time to first discrepancy, active review effort and time to an accepted adjustment. Include unresolved disputes.