Delivery reconciliation with ATG data

What is delivery reconciliation?

Delivery reconciliation compares the quantity documented by the supplier with the inventory change measured in the receiving tank around a delivery. The comparison helps operators identify missing paperwork, an incorrect tank or product assignment, timing mismatches, unusual operating activity, and differences that deserve investigation. It creates a structured review; it does not create certainty from two gauge readings.

The bill of lading and automatic tank gauge (ATG) answer different questions. The delivery document records what the supplier reports for the load or compartment. The gauge records product level and calculates inventory using its configuration and tank information. Those values can be affected by timing and operating conditions, so a difference is a prompt to investigate, not proof that the supplier shorted a delivery or that the tank released product.

Use reconciliation as part of the organization’s approved delivery and inventory-control process. It does not replace safe delivery procedures, source documents, ATG maintenance, release detection, or suspected-release response. Assign a reviewer who understands both the paperwork and the location’s normal operations.

What facts should I gather for every delivery?

Consistency makes comparisons useful across time. Define a standard record before the next discrepancy occurs, then collect it for ordinary deliveries as well as unusual ones. A reviewer should be able to tell which location, product, tank, document, and gauge readings belong together without relying on the memory of the person who received the load.

Keep source timestamps and time zones clear. A reading selected from the wrong time can look plausible while capturing sales, a transfer, or another delivery. Preserve the original bill of lading and source gauge data when available rather than only a value copied into a spreadsheet.

• Location, tank, product, delivery date, and delivery time.
• Supplier, delivery document reference, and bill-of-lading quantity.
• A suitable pre-delivery gauge reading with its source timestamp.
• A suitable post-delivery gauge reading after the receiving event and settling period defined by the organization.
• Dispensing, transfers, multiple drops, or other inventory activity during the comparison window.
• ATG alarms, communication gaps, probe service, or tank-configuration changes that could affect the readings.
• Reviewer, review date, notes, supporting documents, and final disposition.

How should the comparison window be selected?

Choose readings that bracket the correct delivery while limiting unrelated activity. The pre-delivery value should represent the receiving tank before product entered it. The post-delivery value should represent the tank after the delivery and whatever settling practice the organization uses. If dispensing continues, note that activity instead of treating the raw inventory change as the delivered quantity.

Do not silently choose a different reading because it produces a closer match. If the most appropriate source data is missing or unstable, record the limitation and escalate according to the organization’s process. A transparent incomplete comparison is more useful than a precise-looking result built from weak inputs.

Complex events may need separate treatment. Multiple compartments, split deliveries, manifolded tanks, product transfers, or deliveries spanning a reporting interruption can make a simple before-and-after comparison misleading. Involve someone who understands the location and source records before combining events.

How is measured inventory change reviewed?

At its simplest, the measured inventory change is the post-delivery inventory minus the pre-delivery inventory. That arithmetic is only the starting point. The reviewer must identify dispensing, transfers, and other product movement during the window and apply the organization’s approved method for documenting those effects. Keep the unadjusted readings visible so another reviewer can reproduce the work.

Compare the documented quantity and measured change using the organization’s approved tolerance and escalation process. This guide intentionally does not prescribe a tolerance: gauge behavior, tank characteristics, product conditions, measurement practices, contracts, and regulatory obligations differ. A copied percentage can conceal those differences and create false confidence.

Record assumptions next to the result. If sales data was unavailable, the tank was active, or the post-delivery reading was not stable, say so. A reconciliation should distinguish observed source values, calculated values, and reviewer judgment.

1. 1Match the delivery document to the correct location, tank, and product.
2. 2Confirm the delivery and reading timestamps and identify suitable values before and after the receiving event.
3. 3Calculate the unadjusted measured inventory change and retain both source readings.
4. 4Document dispensing, transfers, split drops, or other activity that could affect the comparison.
5. 5Apply the organization’s approved adjustment and tolerance process without hiding uncertain inputs.
6. 6Classify the outcome, assign follow-up where needed, and preserve the evidence and final disposition together.

What can explain a difference?

Timing is a common source of mismatch. The selected reading may include product dispensed before, during, or after the delivery, or it may come from a polling interval that does not line up with the physical event. A late document timestamp or time-zone mismatch can shift the window to the wrong readings.

Temperature, product settling, tank geometry, probe performance, water, tank tilt, manifold behavior, and the ATG’s configuration can affect calculated inventory. Recent service or an incorrect tank chart can also change the relationship between measured level and reported volume. These possibilities should be investigated using qualified personnel and source documentation, not guessed into an adjustment.

Paperwork and assignment errors matter too. A delivery can be attached to the wrong location, tank, product, compartment, or bill of lading. The supplier document may have been corrected after the first copy. Another delivery or transfer can overlap the window.

No single explanation should be assumed from the size or direction of a difference. A difference does not prove a short delivery, theft, meter problem, release, or ATG fault. It shows that the available records do not align within the approved review process and that the cause needs to be resolved.

How should an exception be investigated?

Start by verifying identity and time before debating volume. Confirm the location, receiving tank, product, bill of lading, delivery timestamps, and gauge time. Then review the original pre- and post-delivery data, sales or transfer activity, ATG alarms, communications, and recent service. Correct a clerical mismatch without rewriting the original record.

If the difference remains unexplained, follow the organization’s escalation path. That may involve the delivery owner, supplier, qualified ATG service provider, inventory-control owner, or compliance contact. If other evidence suggests a suspected release, use the applicable investigation and reporting process rather than waiting for reconciliation alone to decide.

Record who reviewed the exception, what evidence they checked, any corrected documents, service findings, and why the item was closed or remains open. Avoid closure notes such as resolved without an explanation another reviewer can evaluate.

What does a useful reconciliation record include?

Store the bill of lading, source readings, delivery event, calculations, operating context, reviewer notes, attachments, and resolution together. Preserve the raw values and show any adjustment separately. A summary outcome is useful only when it points back to evidence that can be reproduced.

Use consistent location, tank, and product names across systems. If a mapping changes, document when and why so earlier records remain understandable. Limit access to authorized users while keeping the record available to the people responsible for operations, accounting, and required reviews.

Review trends carefully. Repeated differences can indicate a process or data-quality issue worth investigating, but a pattern still does not identify the cause by itself. Compare similar events, check whether the same assumptions were used, and involve qualified owners before drawing a conclusion.

• Original supplier document and any documented correction.
• Source ATG readings with timestamps and tank identity.
• Calculated change, separately documented adjustments, and stated limitations.
• Related dispensing, transfer, alarm, connection, or service evidence.
• Reviewer, follow-up owner, decision, and final disposition.

How can TankActive support delivery review?

Where the connected ATG supplies supported delivery data, TankActive can help authorized users review a received delivery event alongside inventory history. The TankActive Fuel plan also identifies manual delivery reconciliation as a supported product capability. Availability and detail still depend on the connected gauge, account configuration, and source data.

TankActive does not verify the supplier’s bill of lading, observe the physical drop, establish a contractual tolerance, or determine that a difference proves a short delivery or release. The reviewer remains responsible for selecting appropriate source records, documenting assumptions, and following the organization’s investigation process.

Use the platform to make evidence easier to find, then retain the supplier document and any external records the workflow requires. If data is missing, investigate the ATG and connection path rather than filling the gap with an assumed value.