Reconciling a trade promotion claim against approved conditions means testing each submitted claim against three separate questions: was the store and SKU eligible, is the evidence complete for the required tasks and period, and was the activity actually approved. A claim can pass one test and fail the others, so a reviewer should record a result for each test rather than a single pass or fail. Settlement then follows the agreed business rules, not the strength of the relationship with the field team.
Store trade promotion claim reconciliation in three tests
Keep eligibility, evidence completeness and approval as separate results. A failure in one test leads to a different next action: reject, request more evidence, or route to the approver for a decision.
Why the three tests must stay separate
Most claim disputes come from collapsing eligibility, evidence and approval into one judgement. When they are separated, a reviewer can say precisely what is wrong: the outlet was not in the approved list, or the evidence does not cover the claimed period, or the mechanic was changed without a recorded approval. Each of those leads to a different next action — reject, request more evidence, or route to the approver for a decision.
Use the plan as the reference document. A complete promotional plan normally states the purpose, date range, participating products, target outlets, promotion mechanics, responsibility and budget assumptions. These are useful planning fields to compare against, not a confirmed field list in any specific system.
Test 1: Store and SKU eligibility
Eligibility checks whether the claimed outlet, product and dates were inside the approved conditions.
Store eligibility
Compare the claimed outlet against the approved participating store list for that campaign. Keep target outlets, eligible outlets and completed execution as distinct concepts in your records, because an assigned outlet is not the same as one that executed. Do not report a coverage rate unless you have the data behind it.
SKU eligibility
Check that each claimed product was on the participating product list, and that the claim uses the correct pack size or case configuration. Mismatched pack sizes are a common source of value differences even when the outlet and campaign are correct.
Period eligibility
Check that the transaction or execution date falls inside the approved campaign dates. Decide in advance how you treat activity on the first and last day, and how you treat claims submitted late.
Test 2: Evidence completeness
Evidence should relate to the relevant outlet, campaign, task and period. Ask four matching questions for every evidence item: is it the right outlet, the right campaign, the right task type, and inside the right period?
Also be clear about what evidence does and does not prove. A photo can support that a display was built; it does not by itself prove sales uplift. Reviewers should treat task completion, reviewer acceptance and business outcome as three different states and record them separately.
Test 3: Approval
Approval is a decision, not a document check. Confirm that the conditions used in the claim match the approved mechanic: discount type, rate or value, per-unit or lump-sum treatment, and any volume tiers. If an outlet, product or mechanic changed mid-campaign, the claim needs a recorded approval for that variation, with the approver and the date. Without it, the claim is not reconcilable against the original conditions.
Common discrepancy categories
| Category | Typical finding | Test that failed | Usual next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineligible outlet or SKU | Outlet or product not on the approved list | Eligibility | Reject the line and notify the submitter |
| Out-of-period activity | Execution or transaction outside approved dates | Eligibility | Reject or route late-claim exception |
| Missing evidence | Required task has no supporting record | Evidence | Request evidence within a defined window |
| Evidence mismatch | Evidence belongs to another outlet, campaign or period | Evidence | Request correct evidence |
| Quantity or value variance | Claimed units or amount differ from the approved rate applied to validated volume | Evidence or approval | Recalculate from approved rate |
| Unapproved mechanic change | Rate, tier or mechanic differs from the approved plan | Approval | Route to approver for a decision |
| Duplicate claim | Same outlet, campaign and period already claimed | Evidence or approval | Reject duplicate before settlement |
| Incomplete sign-off | Approval record exists but lacks an approver or date | Approval | Return for completion |
Reviewer checklist
- Confirm the claim references a single campaign with an approved plan.
- Check every claimed outlet against the approved participating store list.
- Check every claimed SKU, pack size and case configuration.
- Check claimed dates against the approved campaign period.
- Confirm the approved mechanic, rate and any tiers used in the calculation.
- Re-perform the claimed amount arithmetic from the approved rate and validated volume.
- Confirm each required task has an evidence record matching outlet, campaign and period.
- Confirm any mid-campaign change has a recorded approval with approver and date.
- Search for duplicate claims on the same outlet, campaign and period.
- Log an outcome and a discrepancy category for every line, including accepted lines.
- Record the settlement decision separately from eligibility, evidence and approval results.
An illustrative example
Consider a hypothetical two-week in-store display campaign covering a defined set of outlets. A claim arrives for an outlet outside the approved list, with a display photo taken two days after the campaign ended, claiming the approved per-unit rate. The eligibility test fails on the outlet, the evidence test fails on the period, and the approval test technically passes because the rate matches. Logging three separate results makes the rejection explainable and shows the submitter exactly what to correct next time.
Roles and inputs
Typical readers of this process include trade marketing, sales operations, promotion coordinators and finance reviewers. Responsibilities vary by organisation, but the inputs are consistent: the approved plan, the participating outlet and product lists, the evidence records, and a claim submission with values. Keep a written decision rule for partial acceptance, so deductions are applied consistently rather than negotiated case by case.
Common mistakes
- Treating a photo as proof of sales uplift rather than proof of task completion.
- Approving an ineligible outlet because the execution looked good.
- Accepting a claim without re-performing the amount calculation.
- Allowing verbal mechanic changes to be settled without a recorded approval.
- Reporting coverage using assigned outlets instead of defined, completed execution.
- Mixing approved budget, committed amounts, submitted claims and accepted settlement in the same figure.
Where Airpalm fits
Airpalm publicly describes mobile visits, route planning, store audits, sales orders, inventory and promotion management (source: airpalm.com, checked 2026-10-09). For claim review, that means field activity records such as visits and store audits can sit alongside promotion management, which is useful when you need to match evidence to an outlet and a period. Whether specific review, approval and settlement workflows are standard, configured or separately integrated is a question to confirm in a demonstration. You can read the general lifecycle in Trade Promotion Management: What It Is and How It Works, and browse related material under promotion reconciliation.
Limitations and questions to settle first
This framework is an editorial process guide, not a description of a confirmed product interface. Before you build a review process on it, agree your own rules for late claims, partial acceptance, evidence retention windows, currency handling and who holds final settlement authority. Treat any spend comparison as a comparison of approved budget, committed amounts, submitted claims and accepted settlement under explicitly stated rules — not as a financial result. Evaluating promotional return also requires an agreed baseline, time period, cost scope and treatment of other influences; execution completion and sales changes alone do not establish causal uplift.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Should eligibility, evidence and approval be checked in one pass?
No. Record a separate result for each test. Eligibility looks at whether the outlet, SKU and dates were approved; evidence looks at whether the required records exist and match the outlet, campaign, task and period; approval looks at whether a person accepted the conditions used, including any mid-campaign change. One failing test produces a different next action from another, so combining them makes the outcome hard to explain and hard to correct.
What evidence does a claim need beyond a display photo?
Depends on the task in the approved plan. The practical rule is that every required task should have a record linking it to the right outlet, campaign and period. A photo can support task completion but does not by itself prove sales uplift, so reviewers should record task completion, reviewer acceptance and business outcome as separate states rather than one status.
How should partial claims and deductions be handled?
Set a written decision rule before the campaign starts. For each discrepancy category, define whether the line is rejected, recalculated at the approved rate, or escalated to an approver. Keep approved budget, committed amounts, submitted claims and accepted settlement as distinct figures so a deduction never gets confused with a budget change.
What should we verify before choosing software to support claim review?
Ask for a demonstration of the actual supported planning, execution, review and reconciliation scope, then validate role permissions, data sources and exception handling. Ask what is standard, what is configured and what requires separate integration. Airpalm publicly describes mobile visits, route planning, store audits, sales orders, inventory and promotion management, so confirm which review and settlement steps sit inside that scope and which do not.
Put this guide into practice
This general-purpose worksheet is a starting point. Adapt its fields, responsibilities and rules to your business process.
