## TL;DR

Splitting one purchase into multiple invoices just under the approval limit evades oversight and often violates policy. Detect by clustering invoices from one vendor in a short window whose sum crosses the threshold, then check whether they represent one economic transaction. Legitimate partial billing has POs and receipts to back it; evasion does not.

## Steps

1. Cluster same-vendor invoices within a time window.
   Expected: Candidate groups.
2. Sum each group and compare against approval thresholds.
   Expected: Groups that cross the line.
3. Check for supporting POs, receipts, or contracts per invoice.
   Expected: Legitimate backing or its absence.
4. Route suspicious groups to the controller.
   Expected: A policy decision with evidence.
5. Enforce: one economic transaction, one approval path.
   Expected: The rule, documented.

## When to use

- Approval threshold monitoring
- Policy compliance reviews
- Post-payment audits

## When not to use

- Legitimate progress billing (documented)
- Recurring subscriptions
- Small routine purchases

## Compatibility

ERP-agnostic.

## Variant phrasings

### invoice splitting approval limit

### evade approval threshold invoices

### split purchase invoices

## Root cause

Thresholds create an incentive to stay beneath them. Without clustering analysis, each invoice looks compliant while the transaction is not.

## Edge cases

- Standing orders legitimately produce many small invoices; scope by transaction, not vendor
- Emergency purchases need a fast path, not a punishment
- Document the business reason when splitting is legitimate

## Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_5TUn4HpJ70ioGVtH0a4UqQ