MA236 criteria.

My approach is simplistic but it should work. On POLINES you have a Matched-Qty and a Rec-Qty (received) and I usually just report on where matched>received. There is a field called Matched-No-Rec but I don't actually know how this is used (I'm looking at our test system). That might be the field you need to use to filter your records.

Hello David, and thank you for the advice.
Matched > Received does return under-received lines and is currently part of my criteria, but used alone excludes matched quantities where the invoiced amt is not equal to the po extended amt, and would also exclude over-received lines, both of which might be in MA236. I looked at "MATCHED_NO_REC", but unfortunately all fields are 0.

I am currently using MAINVDTL as my primary table as I have to include records with a line number of 0. These “Zero Lines” are created by AP and are assigned the proper line number once matched. While these rarely occur I do have to account for them.

Any idea of how I can additionally filter the data while getting over and under received as well as unmatched invoice amount?

Sorry - I've been under the weather so haven't been keeping up. The only other thing, since you seem to be 95% there with your current criteria, is to evaluate the differences between your report and Lawson's and try to account for those differences in your logic.

Without knowing more about what those differences are, it's hard to advise. Another option is to let your end users know about the variances and see if they're okay with them. You might actually be reporting back what they need to see even if Lawson doesn't.

Hi Theo,
I am in the process of re-creating the record selection criteria for MA236
Would you mind sharing the logic you created?
Thanks!

I would be very interested as well. Thanks!