EDI Integration
A parcel comes back to the warehouse on a Tuesday afternoon, gets scanned in, and a credit note goes out before anyone checks whether the partner's return authorisation was ever raised. Three weeks later that credit turns up as a deduction on the remittance, with no document finance can point to. This page covers the EDI that ties a partner return to the authorisation its own terms require, from the moment the customer requests it to the credit that closes it out.
Returns EDI failures
A returns account goes live properly when authorisation, receipt and credit have all been run through the partner's own terms, not assumed to match. Cogent² sets that chain up, tests it against a real return before go live, and keeps watching it once volume starts moving.
Every credit gets checked against the authorisation the partner's terms actually require before it is allowed to post, not after.
Each credit written is tied back to the RMA and the receipt that justify it, so a deduction on the remittance always has a document behind it.
Cogent² AI flags a return that stalls between receipt and credit, or a refund issued ahead of a unit the warehouse hasn't graded yet, so the gap gets picked up in days rather than at next audit.
Each page covers the documents and the failures specific to that platform.
A partner's terms usually name what makes a return valid: an RMA number raised before the parcel ships, a receipt confirmation from the warehouse, and a reason code that matches what was actually sent back. Credit that skips any of those three is a credit the partner can legitimately claw back later.
Start from where the authorisation is actually issued. Each platform page covers how that single platform raises an RMA, confirms receipt and triggers a credit, so the right page is whichever one is issuing the authorisation your finance team is trying to match. If both platforms feed the same ledger, you may need both pages read together, not a choice between them.
Yes, in the sense that each platform issues its own authorisation and its own receipt confirmation, so each needs its own check against its own terms. What doesn't need duplicating is the ledger side: one credit matching rule can serve both, provided it reads the RMA and receipt from whichever platform raised them before it lets a credit post.
It depends which step is slowest, and that's worth measuring before you promise anything. If the warehouse scan is the bottleneck, the authorisation clock can't start until that scan lands, so the realistic turnaround is the partner's stated window minus whatever the warehouse actually takes to log a return once it physically arrives.
No. The authorisation check itself is configuration work done once at setup, mapping the partner's terms to the data the platform sends back. Grading stays a warehouse task either way. What changes is that the credit no longer waits on someone manually comparing an RMA list against a remittance line by hand.
No. A wholesale invoicing feed and a returns authorisation feed are separate documents against separate rules, and Cogent² can run the returns side without touching that existing relationship. The two only need to meet where both post to the same ledger, and that's a reconciliation point, not a reason to switch providers.
Talk to a Cogent2 operator who has actually delivered this work. We will help you scope, plan and ship — without the agency overhead.
We use essential cookies to keep this site secure and working. We do not run advertising or analytics tracking. You can accept optional cookies or keep only the essentials. See our Cookie Policy.
