Skip to main content
DigitalSanctum.
Verified benchmark case Definition v1.7.0

Invoice Approval Process

Turn how your business works into a process you can see, test and improve.

Start with an SOP, operations manual or conversation. Sanctum Chat is our conversational process-analysis assistant. It structures that knowledge into a professional model for Sanctum Flow to validate and simulate, revealing delays, risks and improvement opportunities.

Model my process

Start with a document or a short conversation. No BPMN knowledge required.

This Invoice Approval reference shows the method, evidence and limitations before asking you to trust the result.

Definition validation evidence

Definition
Invoice Approval Process v1.7.0
Standard tested
OMG BPMN 2.0.2
Validation
XSD and Sanctum Flow gates passed
Operating scope
18 top-level + 14 drill-down steps

Who this is for

For teams that know important work can run better.

Process documentation and improvement are valuable wherever work depends on people, decisions, handoffs or controls. You do not need an internal process team or modelling expertise to begin.

Business and operations leaders

See where time, capacity and accountability are being lost before deciding what to change.

Process owners and frontline teams

Turn practical knowledge into a shared process that makes roles, decisions and exceptions clear.

Improvement, risk and automation teams

Start with a validated model before redesigning controls, testing scenarios or automating work.

How the modelling gap closes

Start with the process knowledge you already have

The aim is not to make an SME learn BPMN notation. Sanctum Chat gathers the facts and resolves ambiguity; Sanctum Flow turns the agreed model into a controlled, testable artefact.

  1. 1

    Describe or provide

    Share a non-confidential SOP, operating manual or explain the work conversationally.

  2. 2

    Clarify and structure

    Sanctum Chat asks about actors, decisions, exceptions, controls, timing and missing outcomes.

  3. 3

    Validate and investigate

    Sanctum Flow checks the definition, renders it and runs disclosed operating scenarios.

3/3 controlled generation benchmark

Three isolated Sanctum Chat runs converted the same synthetic SOP into new draft definitions. Every run passed the pinned source contract and independent Sanctum Flow checks. The displayed v1.7.0 showcase remains the curated reference model; it is not represented as one of the generated benchmark drafts.

Evidence verified
Controlled runs
3/3 passed
End-to-end time
20.5 min median
14.2–22 min range
Flow validation
25/25 gates
0 grammar · 3 disclosed lint warnings
Controlled method
Sanctum Chat public API
opencode-go/qwen3.7-max · operator-approved write

Controlled benchmark artefact

Validation evidence

This summary explains what the machine-readable evidence establishes. It does not represent client approval, OMG certification or a performance forecast.

Controlled runs
3/3 passed
Median elapsed
20.5 minutes
Quality gates
25/25 passed
Grammar errors
0
View the complete technical JSON

The raw artefact contains the method, run results, acceptance checks and validation metrics.

Open this section to load the JSON.

Synthetic benchmark input

Invoice Approval Process source SOP

This document is synthetic and contains no client information. It is published so you can compare ordinary process knowledge with the resulting BPMN model.

Invoice Approval Standard Operating Procedure

  • Benchmark document: Synthetic Digital Sanctum reference process
  • Process owner: Accounts Payable Process Owner
  • Version: 1.1
  • Status: Approved for product benchmarking only

1. Purpose

This procedure explains how a buyer organisation receives, validates, approves, and posts supplier invoices. It is intentionally synthetic, contains no client information, and is suitable for repeatable product testing.

2. Scope

The process starts when a supplier submits an invoice and ends when the invoice is either queued for payment, returned for correction, rejected for an unresolved control exception, or rejected by an accountable approver.

Payment execution, bank settlement, and remittance advice are outside this procedure.

3. Participants and responsibilities

Participant or role Responsibility
Supplier Submits invoices and receives correction or rejection notices. The supplier is external to the buyer organisation.
Accounts Payable Resolves validation and matching exceptions, codes non-PO invoices, and communicates outcomes.
Finance System Captures invoices, applies validation and matching rules, selects approval routes, and posts approved invoices.
Business Approver Reviews business purpose, evidence, budget, and delegated authority.
Finance Manager Performs a replacement approval when the normal approval SLA expires.

4. Information and records

The process uses and updates these records:

  • Supplier invoice and supporting evidence.
  • Preparation result containing validation, matching, coding, and exception outcomes.
  • Approval matrix containing delegated financial authority and risk-based routing rules.
  • Required approvers, as an ordered collection selected from the approval matrix.
  • Approval record containing the required route, decisions, timestamps, comments, and escalation evidence.
  • ERP posting record confirming that an approved invoice entered the payment queue.

5. Procedure

5.1 Receive and prepare the invoice

  1. The process begins when the supplier submits an invoice to the buyer organisation.
  2. The Finance System registers the invoice. This normally takes 60 seconds, with a practical range of 20 to 180 seconds.
  3. The Finance System validates mandatory invoice controls using the invoice validation rules. This normally takes 120 seconds, with a range of 30 to 300 seconds.
  4. If the invoice is invalid, preparation ends with the outcome Correction required. For the benchmark, assume 8% of invoices take this route.
  5. If the invoice is valid, determine whether it references a purchase order. Assume 75% of valid invoices are PO-backed and 25% are non-PO.
  6. For a PO-backed invoice, the Finance System performs a three-way match between the invoice, purchase order, and receipt. This normally takes 180 seconds, with a range of 60 to 420 seconds.
  7. If the match is within tolerance, preparation is complete. Assume 85% of PO-backed invoices match within tolerance.
  8. If the match is outside tolerance, an Accounts Payable specialist resolves the exception. The target is 16 hours. Active elapsed work and coordination normally take 7,200 seconds, with a range of 900 to 28,800 seconds.
  9. After exception work, decide whether the mismatch was resolved. Assume 70% are resolved and rejoin the successful preparation route. The other 30% end preparation with the outcome Control exception unresolved.
  10. For a non-PO invoice, an Accounts Payable specialist applies the correct account and cost-centre coding. The target is 8 hours. This normally takes 1,800 seconds, with a range of 300 to 7,200 seconds, after which it rejoins the successful preparation route.
  11. Successful matching or coding ends preparation with the outcome Ready for approval.

The preparation activity is a contained unit of work within the overall invoice process. At the overall level, use its outcome as follows:

  • Ready for approval: continue to approval-route determination. For simulation, assume 88% of all invoices reach this outcome.
  • Correction required: Accounts Payable sends the supplier the validation findings and requests a corrected invoice, then closes this process instance as Returned to supplier. Assume 8% of all invoices take this route.
  • Control exception unresolved: Accounts Payable sends a control rejection notice to the supplier and internal requester, then closes the instance as Control rejection. This is the default outcome; assume 4% of all invoices take this route.

Sending either external notice normally takes 300 seconds, with a range of 60 to 900 seconds.

5.2 Determine the approval route

  1. For an invoice that is ready, the Finance System applies the approval matrix using invoice value, risk, legal entity, and cost-centre attributes.
  2. The system writes the ordered required-approver list and opens the approval record. Route determination normally takes 90 seconds, with a range of 30 to 180 seconds.
  3. Decide whether human approval is required. Policy auto-approval is permitted only when the approval matrix positively confirms eligibility; otherwise route the invoice to human approval as the default. Assume 60% require human approval. The other 40% qualify for policy auto-approval and continue directly to approved posting.

5.3 Obtain human approval

  1. When human approval is required, each person in the required-approver list reviews the invoice in order, not in parallel. Use two approvers as the benchmark simulation cardinality.
  2. Each review confirms business purpose, supporting evidence, budget availability, and delegated financial authority. The approval activity has a 48-hour SLA. Normal elapsed time is 64,800 seconds, with a range of 1,800 to 345,600 seconds.
  3. If the 48-hour SLA expires before the normal review is completed, cancel that outstanding review and send the work to the Finance Manager. The Finance Manager performs a replacement approval with an 8-hour target. This normally takes 3,600 seconds, with a range of 600 to 14,400 seconds.
  4. Whether the response comes from the normal approval route or the escalation route, continue with one approval decision.
  5. If the approval record says Approved, continue to posting. Assume 90% of completed human approval routes are approved.
  6. If it says Rejected, Accounts Payable sends an approval rejection notice to the supplier and internal requester, then closes the instance as Approval rejection. This is the default decision and represents the other 10%. Sending the notice normally takes 300 seconds, with a range of 60 to 900 seconds.

5.4 Post the approved invoice

  1. Policy auto-approvals and successful human approvals join the same approved route.
  2. The Finance System posts the invoice and its approval evidence to the ERP payment queue. This normally takes 240 seconds, with a range of 60 to 600 seconds.
  3. Record the ERP posting result and close the process as Queued for payment.

6. Operating controls

  • The supplier remains external to the buyer organisation. Only the invoice, correction request, control rejection notice, and approval rejection notice cross that organisational boundary.
  • Accounts Payable, Finance System, Business Approver, and Finance Manager responsibilities must remain separately accountable.
  • A process instance closes in exactly one of four states: queued for payment, returned to supplier, control rejection, or approval rejection.
  • Retain the detailed preparation record so registration, validation, matching, coding, and exception-resolution outcomes remain auditable.
  • When no stated condition is true at a decision, use the route identified above as the default outcome.
  • At the 48-hour escalation point, cancel the overdue normal approval. It must not continue in parallel with the replacement Finance Manager approval.
  • The timing and probability figures are synthetic analysis assumptions. They do not authorise an actual payment instruction or bank transaction.
  • For deterministic Monte Carlo testing, model each stated activity duration with a truncated normal distribution bounded by its stated practical range. Use these synthetic standard deviations: invoice registration 15 seconds; control validation 30 seconds; three-way matching 45 seconds; mismatch resolution 2,400 seconds; non-PO coding 600 seconds; each external notice 90 seconds; approval-route determination 20 seconds; normal approval review 57,600 seconds; Finance Manager replacement approval 1,200 seconds; and ERP posting 60 seconds.
  • Retain the procedure scope, exclusions, owner, document version, assumptions, and validation results with any derived process record.

7. Document control

This document may be used for controlled Digital Sanctum product demonstrations and repeatable internal benchmarks. It must never be represented as client evidence, production policy, or approval to execute payments.

Live Process Lab

Inspect the definition. Then test the operating assumptions.

The definition below is served by Sanctum Flow. It is not copied into this website. Use its Definition, Baseline simulation, Operating improvement, Process redesign and Evidence views to inspect the same versioned showcase bundle.

Scope: Invoice receipt through control validation, approval decision and posting to the payment queue. Excludes: Payment execution, bank settlement and remittance advice.

Sanctum Flow · Invoice Approval Process v1.7.0

Open full screen
Text alternative: process overview (18 top-level steps)
  1. 1.Invoice received
  2. 2.Validate, match and code invoice
  3. 3.Preparation outcome?
  4. 4.Request invoice correction
  5. 5.Returned to supplier
  6. 6.Determine approval route
  7. 7.Human approval required?
  8. 8.Review and approve invoice
  9. 9.Perform escalated approval
  10. 10.Approval response received
  11. 11.Invoice approved?
  12. 12.Approval confirmed
  13. 13.Post invoice to payment queue
  14. 14.Queued for payment
  15. 15.Send control rejection
  16. 16.Control rejection
  17. 17.Send approval rejection
  18. 18.Approval rejection

Validate, match and code invoice drill-down (14 steps)

  1. 1.Preparation started
  2. 2.Register invoice
  3. 3.Validate invoice controls
  4. 4.Invoice valid?
  5. 5.PO-backed invoice?
  6. 6.Perform three-way match
  7. 7.Match successful?
  8. 8.Resolve match exception
  9. 9.Exception resolved?
  10. 10.Code non-PO invoice
  11. 11.Preparation complete
  12. 12.Ready for approval
  13. 13.Correction required
  14. 14.Control exception unresolved

Current-state baseline

Illustrative

Sequential review, exception handling and approval waiting compound at higher volumes.

P50 elapsed
17.5h
P95 elapsed
49.72h

Operating improvement

Directional

Faster routing and exception-focused review reduce waiting while retaining the same control points.

P50 elapsed
2.7h
85% lower
P95 elapsed
5.67h
89% lower

What changes in the operating improvement

The validated BPMN control design stays fixed. Only these disclosed synthetic operating assumptions change:

  • Resolve match exception 2 hr mean → 1 hr mean
  • Code non-PO invoice 30 min mean → 15 min mean
  • Review and approve invoice 18 hr mean → 2 hr mean

Process redesign

A different process, not just faster assumptions.

A separately validated future-state definition automates intake and controls, permits straight-through approval only after a positive fail-closed eligibility decision, routes exceptions to people, escalates unresolved review after four hours, and seals approval evidence before posting.

As-is v1.7.0 → Future state v2.0.0 · Same scope and exclusions · Separate validated BPMN artifact

Inspect the redesigned process
Future P50
0.18h
99% lower
Future P95
2.89h
94.2% lower
BPMN added
15
BPMN removed
19
BPMN modified
10

Automated intake and controls

Capture, validate, match, and classify invoices before they enter human work queues.

Control impact

Mandatory, duplicate, tax, supplier, matching, and tolerance controls remain explicit and auditable.

Fail-closed straight-through approval

Only invoices with positive eligibility evidence bypass human approval; every ambiguous result defaults to review.

Control impact

The automated decision and policy version are sealed in the approval record.

Exception-only human review

Approvers receive only non-eligible invoices, together with the failed eligibility reasons.

Control impact

Accountability remains with the delegated approver while routine work no longer consumes the queue.

Faster escalation with sealed evidence

A four-hour interrupting SLA escalates overdue exceptions, and approval evidence is integrity-checked before posting.

Control impact

Escalation and posting retain a complete, immutable decision trail.

These are precomputed, synthetic, directional results. They are not a client forecast. Elapsed cycle time is not used in the labour-value calculator below.

What the scenario exposes

Bottlenecks become an economic question

A diagram explains the control flow. Scenario analysis shows where waiting and manual work accumulate, so improvement decisions can be tested rather than guessed.

Finding 1

Approval waiting dominates tail performance

The baseline P95 is nearly three times its median, and sequential approval review contributes about 97% of simulated elapsed time under these assumptions.

Test next

Measure approval-age bands and escalate only when the defined SLA is at risk.

Finding 2

Routine work should not queue with exceptions

Low-risk, matched invoices consume review capacity when they follow the same operating path as anomalies.

Test next

Apply straight-through controls to routine invoices and direct human attention to mismatches and policy exceptions.

Finding 3

Automation eligibility must fail closed

An absent or ambiguous approval-matrix result must never fall through to policy auto-approval.

Test next

Require a positive auto-approval eligibility decision and route every other invoice to human review by default.

Finding 4

Value needs two separate lenses

Elapsed cycle time and staff touch time answer different questions; combining them would overstate savings.

Test next

Use simulation for flow performance and the transparent calculator for labour-value scenarios.

Transparent value scenario

What could reduced touch time be worth?

Change the assumptions to suit your operation. This calculates labour capacity only; it does not convert elapsed simulation time into cash or include implementation cost.

Illustrative only. This is not a quote, guarantee or financial forecast.

Per invoice
A$13
Capacity / year
2,400 hours
Illustrative / year
A$156,000

Formula: monthly volume × 12 × touch-time reduction ÷ 60 × loaded hourly cost.

Evidence before claims

Know exactly what has and has not been proven

Definition
As-is v1.7.0 + future state v2.0.0
Two separate validated analytic BPMN artifacts displayed by Sanctum Flow
Conformance
OMG BPMN 2.0.2 XSD
Also passed Sanctum Flow semantic and geometry gates
Simulation
Precomputed synthetic scenarios
Assumptions and current limitations disclosed on this page
Human review
Required before operational use
Not represented as OMG certification or client approval
Scenario assumptions
  • Results use deterministic, synthetic scenario inputs rather than client operating data.
  • Activity durations use the disclosed bounded truncated-normal distributions; the engine no longer clamps out-of-range samples onto the limits.
  • Both scenarios use the same validated BPMN definition; operating assumptions change, not the control design.
  • Cycle-time metrics describe elapsed time and are separate from the labour-value calculator.
Current limitations
  • The current model does not include resource queues, staff capacity, working calendars or utilisation.
  • Parallel split paths do not yet synchronize at converging joins, and non-interrupting boundary timers are not simulated.
  • Results are directional and must not be treated as a financial forecast or client-specific recommendation.
  • Subprocess outcomes and parent-gateway decisions are not yet correlated for decision-grade forecasting.

A useful engagement should leave reusable assets

  • ✓ Versioned BPMN definition
  • ✓ Plain-language process narrative
  • ✓ Roles and accountability map
  • ✓ Controls and exception catalogue
  • ✓ KPI and SLA definitions
  • ✓ Disclosed improvement scenarios

Related process models

Planned

Expense Reimbursement

Employee expense submission with receipt capture, manager approval, finance audit, and payroll integration.

Planned

Accounts Payable Workflow

Vendor invoice capture, 2-way/3-way matching, payment run generation, remittance advice, and early payment discount handling.

Planned

Purchase Order Processing

Purchase request creation, budget validation, PO approval, vendor confirmation, and goods receipt matching.

Start with one process

Bring the SOP nobody has time to model

Tell us what the process does and where it hurts. We will arrange a secure way to review source documents after qualification.