Many suppliers incorrectly treat them as the same type of issue, especially because chargebacks often appear on remittance statements as deductions. The result is costly miscommunication, incorrect dispute filings, and revenue leakage that could have been recovered.
A claim is a payment adjustment created when there is a transactional discrepancy between the purchase order, the receiving record, and the invoice. Claims arise during the three-way match process when pricing errors, quantity mismatches, SKU substitutions, or missing allowances are detected. Because claims focus on transactional accuracy, suppliers must provide documentation such as signed bills of lading, packing lists, invoices, or proof of delivery to resolve them.
Some claims appear immediately during invoice processing, while others occur months later as post-audit claims when retailers or audit firms review historical transactions and identify overpayments or missed adjustments.
In simple terms, a claim corrects errors in the transaction.
A deduction is a reduction in supplier payment based on pre-negotiated financial terms defined in the supplier agreement or purchase order. Deductions are not penalties. They represent expected commercial agreements such as promotional allowances, co op funding, marketing fees, volume discounts, return-related charges, and early payment discounts.
Most deductions are routine and cannot be reversed unless they were applied incorrectly or outside the contract terms.
In simple terms, a deduction is a contract-based payment adjustment.
A chargeback is a penalty issued when a supplier fails to meet operational or compliance requirements. These requirements may include delivery accuracy, timeliness, labeling standards, packaging quality, documentation completeness, routing compliance, or fill rate expectations. Chargebacks are generated when the retailer’s compliance system detects failures that increase operational cost or disrupt the supply chain.
Because chargebacks relate to performance, suppliers must provide operational evidence such as carrier confirmations, routing approvals, shipment photos, or compliance logs to dispute them.
In simple terms, a chargeback is a performance penalty for non-compliance.
Claims, deductions, and chargebacks are not always labeled consistently across industries. In many systems, a chargeback appears as a deduction because it reduces the payment. Some buyers classify shortages as claims, others as deductions, and others as compliance penalties. This variability makes it difficult for suppliers to use a single definition without context.
In addition, the burden of proof varies. Some shortages require proof of delivery to dispute. Some compliance charges require operational proof. Some deductions are non-disputable because they are contractual. Suppliers must understand which category an adjustment belongs to to respond correctly.
In short:
A claim reflects a transactional mismatch.
A deduction reflects negotiated financial terms.
A chargeback reflects a failure to meet operational or compliance standards.
| Situation or Trigger | Deduction | Chargeback |
Claim |
| Invoicing error or a mismatch between the purchase order and the invoice | Yes | No | Yes, if the supplier raises a correction |
| Early payment discount or pre-agreed allowance | Yes | No | No |
| Delivery shortage or missing goods | No | Yes, if the buyer treats it as compliance-related | Yes, if the supplier provides evidence of the correct shipment |
| Damaged or defective goods | No | Yes | Yes, if the supplier disputes responsibility |
| Late shipment or delivery outside the required window | No | Yes | No |
| Over-billing or incorrect pricing | Yes or No | No | Yes |
Scenario explanations
The invoice does not match the purchase order:
The buyer may apply a deduction to correct the invoice. The supplier may submit a claim if the deduction is incorrect or unsupported.
Early payment terms apply:
The buyer takes the contracted discount and reduces the payment. This is a deduction that requires no dispute.
Shipment arrives with fewer units than invoiced:
If the buyer views this as a transactional mismatch, a claim is issued.
If the buyer treats it as a compliance failure, a chargeback may occur.
If the supplier can prove correct delivery, the supplier disputes through a claim.
Shipment arrives damaged:
If packaging or loading quality contributed to the damage, a chargeback may be applied.
If the supplier disagrees, the supplier may raise a claim.
Shipment arrives late:
A chargeback is applied for non-compliant delivery timing.
Step 1: Shipment and Invoice Submission
The process begins when the supplier ships the order and submits the invoice. This is the starting point for all later comparisons and compliance checks.
Step 2: Document Matching and Validation
The retailer compares the purchase order, the invoice, and the receiving record as part of the three-way match. Any mismatch in price, quantity, SKU, or allowances can result in a claim or an invoice-related deduction. Pre-negotiated allowances also reduce payment at this stage based on the supplier agreement.
Step 3: Compliance and Performance Review
After document matching, the retailer evaluates the shipment for operational accuracy. This includes delivery timing, fill rate, packaging quality, labeling accuracy, routing adherence, and required documentation. Failures in these areas may generate chargebacks.
Step 4: Adjustment Applied to Payment
Once transactional and compliance checks are complete, the retailer applies the appropriate adjustments to the payment. The supplier sees a reduced remittance amount, and since all reductions often appear together on the statement, the supplier must identify whether the adjustment is a claim, deduction, or chargeback.
Step 5: Dispute and Resolution
Suppliers dispute claims using transactional documentation such as proof of delivery, bills of lading, or invoice corrections. Chargebacks are disputed using operational evidence such as carrier confirmations, shipment photos, routing approvals, or compliance reports. Contract-related deductions are usually addressed through the commercial or buying team if they were misapplied.
The examples below illustrate how these issues are handled across retailers and how code structures map to each type of adjustment.
Transactional mismatches that come from the three-way match process.
If the invoice cost does not match the purchase order, the retailer issues a claim. Walmart uses price difference codes, Target uses pricing variance codes, and Amazon classifies this as a catalog or cost defect. Suppliers dispute these by submitting updated pricing agreements.
When the delivered SKU does not match the invoiced item, retailers flag the shipment. Walmart uses substitution and cost discrepancy codes, Target uses substitution codes, and Amazon labels these as catalog or supply chain defects. Disputes require proof that the substitution was approved.
Shortages occur when fewer units are received than shipped. Walmart assigns Code 22 for Goods Billed Not Shipped, Code 24 for Carton Shortage, and Code 25 for No Merchandise Received. Target uses shortage codes such as A030, and Amazon uses shortage or potential shortage categories. Suppliers use proof of delivery, pallet counts, and carrier signatures to dispute them.
If a promotional allowance is missing from the invoice, the retailer creates a claim. These appear as pricing or document corrections in Walmart, Target, and Amazon systems. Suppliers resolve them by providing allowance agreements.
Pre-negotiated financial adjustments were taken according to supplier agreements.
Retailers deduct promotional or marketing support automatically. Walmart uses allowance codes, Target applies promotional deduction categories, and Amazon uses co op or merchandising program deductions. These are rarely disputable.
Returned or defective products result in deductions for cost and handling. Walmart uses Code 1 for Defective Merchandise, while Target and Amazon classify these under defect or return categories.
Retailers take early payment discounts automatically if terms allow. These appear across all major retailer systems as standard deductions.
Tiered volume discounts are applied when purchasing thresholds are met. Walmart, Target, and Amazon treat these as contractual program deductions.
Compliance penalties are tied to operational or performance issues.
Late or early deliveries trigger penalties. Amazon uses late shipment codes tied to on-time performance, Target uses D12 for Must Arrive By Date violations, and Walmart applies shipping performance penalties.
Improper labels, crushed cases, or incorrect palletization lead to compliance fines. Amazon flags these as packaging or labeling defects, Walmart assigns case or load quality penalties, and Target uses automated packaging non-compliance codes.
Missing or incorrect ASNs, packing lists, or bills of lading generate documentation penalties. Target uses codes like D04 for ASN errors and D06 or D08 for missing documents. Amazon counts these as catalog or invoicing defects.
Using the wrong carrier or ignoring routing instructions results in penalties across all major retailers, each using its own routing compliance codes. These disputes require routing confirmations or carrier documentation.
Understanding claims, deductions, and chargebacks is important. Preventing unnecessary losses is better. Automating the entire process is best.
iNymbus helps suppliers take control of deductions, chargebacks, shortages, and claims through automation that works across more than forty major retailers. Instead of spending hours gathering documents and submitting disputes manually, the iNymbus platform manages the process from start to finish.
The system identifies deduction types, collects supporting proof, files disputes automatically, and tracks recoveries. Your team stays focused on growth while iNymbus handles the repetitive work.
If you are managing a rising volume of shortages, chargebacks, or unpaid invoices, iNymbus gives you the automation you need to protect your margins and scale with confidence.