The walkthrough
70.6 seconds. Captions are burned in; an
.srt and .vtt sit beside the file.
The friction, as reported
“When they make a payment for 1 of the invoices in the batch, you have to remove and redo the payment then match the separate invoice up, and then recreate the batch payment”
Verbatim from the Xero Product Ideas board. Reproduced as a contiguous extract and checked against the harvested record.
What the walkthrough shows
- Find and Match opens with the batch already selected.
- Pane one carries Split, on one transaction at a time.
- Pane two holds the selected batch and has no Split.
- The gap between the two numbers reads 1,320.00.
- One payment becomes two. They still sum to 6,140.00.
- Difference now reads 0.00. The arithmetic survives.
- The identity does not. One reference has become two.
- A remittance advice for BATCH-0148 went out on 3 July.
- It quotes 6,140.00, which is now neither payment.
- Undo used to be one action on one object.
- Unreconciling part one will never bring BATCH-0148 back.
- Part two has no bank line. 1,320.00 stays open.
The assessment
The constraint.
Splitting the payment splits its identity.
The remittance they already hold stops matching either half.
The reasoning
The arithmetic survives the split. The identity does not.
One payment becomes two, and they still sum to 6,140.00 — the difference reads 0.00 and the reconciliation balances. But one reference has become two, and everything downstream was keyed to the reference.
A remittance advice for the original batch has already been sent. It quotes 6,140.00, which is now neither payment. The supplier is holding a document that matches nothing in Xero.
Undo used to be one action on one object. Unreconciling part one will never bring the original batch back. The operation is not reversible in the way every other reconciliation action on this screen is.
Part two has no bank line. 1,320.00 stays open, waiting for a statement line that may never arrive in that shape.
No version of this split leaves the records clean. That is not an argument against building it — the workflow it replaces is genuinely worse — but it is a cost that has to be chosen deliberately rather than discovered afterwards.