Mystery Payments: Quick Flow + AR Reporting Fix

This was a fast-turnaround request to help a client identify after warranty service payments that had been received, where clients had not been invoiced—a pain point that was starting to cause confusion between Customer Service and the AR team.

Our goal was to capture just enough data to understand how often payments were slipping through the cracks without an invoice being created, so we could start to track and understand the root cause.

What I built:

• Payment Received (Checkbox)

• Payment Received Date (Timestamp)

• Payment Method (Picklist)

• AR Invoice Generated (Checkbox)

I also updated an existing after-save flow on Cases to:

• Set the Payment Received Date automatically if the checkbox is marked.

Then I created a report to highlight cases where:

• Payment Received = TRUE, and

• AR Invoice Generated = FALSE

That gave the team a clear view into which cases might need attention from AR—and a starting point to evaluate if their overall process needed refining.

---

Reflections:

🌸 I suggested improved field names for clarity, which were approved by the stakeholder.

🌿 While building the flow, I considered what should happen if a user unchecks the “Payment Received” box after it was marked. Should the date field be cleared as well?

• My instinct was to prevent inaccurate data—especially since this involved financial tracking—and I didn’t want the timestamp to suggest a payment had been received when it hadn’t.

• But instead of making assumptions, I brought the question to the stakeholder. They confirmed they preferred to leave the timestamp untouched, even if the checkbox was later cleared.

• This was a good reminder that with financial data, automation needs to reflect the business’s rules—not just what seems logically clean from a systems perspective.

🌻 Sometimes the goal isn’t to fix the process immediately, but to shine a light on where it might be breaking down.