Billback management without spreadsheet sprawl.
Distributor billbacks are a unique kind of margin hemorrhage: the contract terms, the inbound claim, the original sales transaction, and the credit memo to settle it all live in different systems. Aurgus is the one governed layer where they meet. Every billback ties to the source contract, the qualifying sales row, and the credit-memo posting — replayable end-to-end.
Billbacks live across four systems — and none of them owns the answer.
The contract terms, the inbound claim, the original sale, the credit memo. Four systems. Four formats. One reconciliation problem.
- Inbound billback claims arrive in PDFs and EDI 812s. The matching sales transaction lives in your ERP. The contract terms live in Legal's filing cabinet. Reconciling the three is manual work, every week.
- Distributors dispute amounts you can't immediately defend. Your team builds the defense from screenshots, spreadsheet exports, and the analyst's memory.
- Claim aging stretches into months. The cost of credit not denied promptly is real — and it shows up as deductions you never get back.
- When the distributor switches portals or systems, the historical chain breaks. Your old claim history is now in a format nobody on your team can parse.
- The credit memo is posted in the ERP, but the original contract clause it satisfies isn't. Audit-trail reconstruction means joining three system exports by hand.
One claim. One chain. One reconciliation.
Aurgus is the substrate where the contract, the claim, the sales row, and the credit memo all meet — and the chain between them is the data model, not a reconstruction.
- 1
Claim intake via CSV today.
The universal ingestion pipeline normalizes any structured shape (CSV, spreadsheet exports from distributor portals, claim datasets) into the calc substrate. EDI 812 / 845 and direct portal-API connectors are on the design-partner roadmap.
- 2
Match claims to sales rows via the same condition-record pattern that runs your rebates.
The matching logic that ties POS rows to agreement conditions is the load-bearing pattern Aurgus's rebate flow already runs. Pointing it at inbound billback claims is in active design-partner build; the substrate is shipped.
- 3
Triage exceptions through the cockpit's existing queues.
Mismatches surface today through the Leakage and Anomalies queues with full lineage to the underlying agreement and POS rows. A billback-specific triage view that diffs claim vs contract vs sales row is on the roadmap.
- 4
Settle approved billbacks with full chain.
Approved billbacks emit Settlement events with lineage to the agreement, the contributing accruals, and the source rows. Shell credit-memo iDoc emission to SAP is shipped.
- 5
Dispute capture on the per-agreement surface today.
Disputes are captured through the per-agreement workflow with the operator's reasoning attached. Promotion of Dispute to a first-class calc-event type with native lineage is in active build — today the dispute lives with the agreement, not as a standalone ledger event.
Each existing tool solves a different problem.
Honest comparison of what billback teams already use.
Flexible, but ungoverned.
The default. Every claim gets a tab. Every reconciliation is manual. Every distributor has their own format. There's no audit trail beyond what the analyst remembers.
Workflows the claim. Doesn't compute the math.
These tools route, queue, and approve claims. They don't tie a claim back to the contract clause or the qualifying sales rows. The calculation authority lives elsewhere.
Posts the credit. Doesn't reconcile the contract.
Your ERP posts the credit memo and updates AR. It doesn't validate that the credit matches the contract terms or the original sale. That validation is your team's job.
The governed reconciliation layer.
One substrate where contract, claim, sale, and credit memo all meet. Auto-match, operator triage on mismatches, full chain on every settlement, dispute as a first-class event.
Billback management, honestly answered.
- What is billback management?Billback management is the workflow that handles inbound distributor or partner credit claims against your contracted terms. Aurgus normalizes inbound claims (EDI, PDF, CSV), auto-matches them to qualifying sales transactions and contract clauses, surfaces mismatches for operator triage, and emits credit-memo settlement events with full chain.
- How is billback management different from rebate management?Rebates are typically pushed: the manufacturer accrues and pays the partner. Billbacks are typically pulled: the partner claims a credit and the manufacturer validates it. Both live on the same calculation substrate in Aurgus — same event log, same lineage model — but the operator workflow differs. Billbacks need claim-matching tools; rebates need accrual-projection tools.
- Can Aurgus ingest billback claims via EDI or distributor portals?CSV / spreadsheet ingestion is shipped today via the universal ingestion pipeline; any distributor-portal export that can be downloaded as CSV is accepted. EDI 812 / 845 and direct portal-API connectors are on the design-partner roadmap — pre-built EDI parsing isn't shipped yet. For a specific portal or EDI flow today, the path is engagement-scope onboarding work.
- What happens when we dispute a billback claim?Dispute capture is shipped today on the per-agreement workflow — disputed amount, operator reasoning, and the supporting lineage (what the contract says, what the sales rows show) live with the underlying agreement. Promotion of Dispute to a first-class calc-event type with native ledger-level lineage is in active build — the goal is for the full back-and-forth to be queryable from the event log directly, not just from the agreement's workflow surface.
Where else your commercial numbers break.
See where your billbacks are actually leaking.
Thirty minutes. No pitch. A discovery conversation about your billback reconciliation process — and whether Aurgus is the right architectural fit.