How to reconcile payment processor settlements with an AI agent

Processor settlements need a three-way match of orders in your sales system, the processor's settlement report and net deposits in your bank. The agent ties all three, checks fees against your contracted rates, tracks refunds, chargebacks and reserves, and drafts the journals that split gross sales from fees. A person approves the journals and decides any dispute with the processor.

What is settlement reconciliation, and who owns it?

When customers pay by card or through a payment processor, the money does not arrive one sale at a time. The processor batches transactions, deducts its fees, refunds and chargebacks, may hold a reserve, and pays out a net amount on a schedule. Your sales system records gross sales; your bank shows net payouts. Between them sits the processor's settlement report, which explains the difference.

The revenue or cash accountant owns the reconciliation. The treasury team cares about timing and reserves. Whoever manages the processor relationship owns fee disputes. The aim is simple to state: every order is either paid out, refunded, charged back or still pending, and every payout is explained.

What are the steps, and who acts at each one?

1. Agent, depth 1: loads three sources. Orders and payments from the sales system, the processor's settlement reports, and bank deposits from the bank feed.
2. Agent, depth 1: matches orders to processor transactions. By transaction reference, amount and date. Orders paid by other methods are excluded.
3. Agent, depth 1: matches settlement batches to bank deposits. Each payout's net amount against a deposit, using the payout reference.
4. Agent, depth 1: decomposes each payout. Gross sales, refunds, chargebacks, chargeback fees, processing fees, reserve held or released, adjustments.
5. Agent, depth 1: checks fees. Each transaction's fee against the rate card in your contract with the processor, by card type, region and method. Overcharges are listed.
6. Agent, depth 2: drafts journals. Gross sales to the clearing account, fees to expense, chargebacks and reserves to their accounts, so the clearing account clears to nil when payouts land. Parked.
7. Agent, depth 2: drafts the fee query. For the relationship owner to send, with transaction-level evidence.
8. Person, accountant: approves journals and resolves unmatched items.
9. Person, relationship owner: pursues fee disputes and reserve releases.

Which controls matter, and what evidence do they leave?

Three sources, three provenances. Your sales system is your own record; the processor's report is a counterparty's statement; the bank deposit is the bank's. The deposit is the anchor: if the processor's report and the bank disagree, the bank wins until explained. Evidence: source on each matched item.

Clearing account to nil. The processor clearing account should hold only payouts in transit. Evidence: ageing of the clearing balance.

Fee rates under version control. The contract rate card is loaded as a reference with its effective date. Evidence: rate card version on each fee check.

Chargeback tracking. Each chargeback is linked to its order, with the dispute status and deadline. Evidence: the chargeback register.

Journals approved. Evidence: approver identity on each.

What does a payout look like when it is decomposed?

Take an illustrative online retailer with a payout of 47,250. The agent finds 52,000 of gross card sales in the batch, less 2,500 of refunds, 600 of chargebacks with 75 of chargeback fees, and 1,575 of processing fees. Checking fees against the rate card, it finds that 300 transactions on one card type were charged a higher rate than the contract allows, an overcharge of 90 in this batch. The accountant approves the journals; the relationship owner raises the overcharge with the processor.

What should you measure?

• Orders without a matching settlement after the expected payout date.
• Clearing account balance older than the payout cycle.
• Fee overcharges identified and recovered.
• Chargebacks by reason, and how many were won.
• Reserve held and its release dates.

Where does it usually go wrong?

Net posting. Payouts are posted to revenue at the net amount. Revenue is understated, fees are invisible and nobody notices overcharges. Post gross and fees separately.

Refunds in a different batch. A refund appears in a later payout than the sale. Matching by batch fails; matching by order succeeds.

Reserves forgotten. The processor holds back an amount against chargebacks. It sits in no account and is never released. Track reserves as an asset with release dates.

Multiple processors, one clearing account. Payouts from two processors mixed in one account cannot be reconciled cleanly. Use one clearing account per processor.

The matching logic is close to that used to reconcile bank accounts to the general ledger and to reconcile supplier statements, with a counterparty report in the middle. Your own spending on cards is a different flow; see whether an agent can reconcile company card spend.

Where Pryme fits

In Pryme, matching, fee checking and drafting journals are separate capabilities, each certified on your own past settlement periods. Bank deposits arrive signed by the bank, settlement reports signed by the processor and orders sealed from your own system, so every difference shows which party's figure is in question. Journals are held and every match is filed. The finance bounds are in AI agents for finance.