Synthetic invoice retry matrix: source operation, attempt and target draft are different IDs

An authored identity policy

All labels are invented. Organisation O-A and source operation S-17 identify one immutable intended invoice creation. Attempt A-1 times out after target draft D-81 may have been created. A-2 is another transport attempt, not another invoice. Content token P means equality of the agreed business fields, not an actual checksum or vendor idempotency key. The operator must separately verify supported vendor mechanisms and safe concurrency.

If the matrix is wider than the box, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard: focus the matrix and use Left/Right.

organisation / operation | observed target state      | expected authored disposition
O-A / S-17, content P     | one D-81, content P        | retain D-81; no new create
O-A / S-17, content P     | D-81 and D-82, both P      | hold duplicate; no deletion
O-A / S-17, content Q     | one D-81, content P        | hold content conflict
O-A / S-17, content P     | lookup unavailable         | hold unknown
O-A / S-17, content P     | no visible match           | unresolved until retry safety established
O-B / S-17, content P     | D-81 exists only in O-A     | never reuse O-A's draft

A changed source is not silently a retry

Under this example's immutable-operation rule, editing S-17 from P to Q needs a separately authorised correction decision; generating a fresh attempt ID must not bypass that rule. Two source operations with equal amounts are not necessarily duplicates. A row number that changes after sorting is not a proven stable operation identity. A real integration needs a durable documented identity contract, not these made-up strings alone.

• Test changed contents and cross-organisation matching separately from repeating an identical input.
• No draft may be deleted, sent or posted merely to make the matrix pass.

Specification, not a tested connector

The matrix is an authored acceptance specification. No provider lookup, idempotency key, concurrency mechanism or recovery process has been executed. The HTTP source supports the caution about repeating uncertain writes; it does not validate this policy or establish a particular vendor's response. A real test would retain target identities, counts and dispositions on an authorised isolated route.

• An eventual zero-match lookup is not automatically authoritative evidence that no write occurred.
• No invented event here is a customer enquiry, invoice or payment.

A narrow contextual priced route

Use this matrix to ask the existing operator how their duplicate rule works. The £145 Sheets-to-Xero offer is still a five-field repair with one disposable row and agreed repeated-input checks, not a reconciliation or idempotency subsystem. Request it only if that mapping scope fits; recovery, historical cleanup and new architecture require separate agreement. Send invented identities and expected dispositions, not customer references, invoices or keys. The price is untested and payment follows the agreed passing checks and sign-off.