Recount required
The evidence does not establish a reliable quantity. Keep the line open and request another observation, with the reason clear to the counter.
Inventory discrepancy report for investigation and correction
Keep the original observation, recount and investigation together. Decide whether the difference needs a stock correction or a change in the counting process.
Free for up to five users. No credit card required.
Adapt fields, workflows, and dashboards without code. Explore 1,000+ app templates and use cases
Sign in to explore the sample and install your own copy.
Ten boxes on the shelf did not mean two boxes were lost
A fictional discrepancy in the sample app follows a second observation rather than a reflex quantity correction.
Record the first observation
The glove balance at A-02 is 12 boxes. The first counter records 10 and notes that two boxes may be at the packing area. Keep that quantity and explanation intact.
Return an incomplete investigation
The reviewer asks which locations were checked. The requester corrects the investigation and resubmits the same discrepancy. The returned response remains in the review history.
Request and record the recount
A second observation accounts for all 12 boxes, including the adjacent shelf. Link the recount to the exact original line so a similar SKU elsewhere cannot be mistaken for the evidence.
Close without an adjustment
The reviewer accepts the explanation. The item-location balance remains 12; the count history still shows the original 10 and the later 12.
Investigate in an order that avoids creating a second error
Swipe horizontally to see all columns →
| Check | Question | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and unit | Did we count the same item, location and unit as the stock record? | Item reference, bin label and any documented unit conversion. |
| Observation | Was the entire location counted, including overflow or adjacent stock? | Original count, recount, counter and timestamp. |
| Timing | Do the snapshot and count refer to the same moment? | Cutoff and receipts or issues around that time. |
| Condition | Is damaged or quarantined stock being treated consistently? | Condition explanation and the applicable disposition. |
| Unexplained remainder | What difference remains after those checks? | Supported cause or an explicit open investigation, with an owner. |
Give the reviewer three meaningful choices
No adjustment needed
The difference is explained without a quantity change. Retain the evidence and the original observation, including any process lesson.
Adjustment required
The reviewed evidence supports a different quantity. Request the correction separately so the reviewer can check the current balance before applying it.
Use recurring causes to change the process
If “wrong location” keeps recurring, add an overflow-location prompt or improve the picking handoff. If units are often confused, change the displayed unit guidance and required explanation. In Jodoo, an authorized administrator can change those fields and review requirements while preserving the same item and count history.
If the issue is timing rather than an incorrect observation, reconcile movements around the count. Do not use a generic “Other” reason to close everything. Keep a specific investigation note when the cause is uncertain, and leave the decision pending until the responsible reviewer has enough evidence.
Resolving stock differences
Is a negative variance proof that stock was lost?
No. Check the count, unit, location and transaction timing first. Stock may be elsewhere, an issue may be missing from the records, or the snapshot may use a different cutoff. Record the supported cause rather than choosing a loss reason solely from the sign of the difference.
Should the recount replace the first count?
No. Keep it as a second observation linked to the same line. The reviewer should be able to compare the quantities, times and explanations, then record which observation establishes the outcome.
What if the recount matches the book balance?
The reviewer can close the discrepancy without a quantity adjustment. Retain the initial difference and explain the counting or location issue, especially if it suggests a recurring process problem.
Can a reviewer return an incomplete investigation?
Yes. The sample uses a native review task with a return-for-correction action. The requester can amend the investigation and resubmit the same record; the earlier response remains in its history.
Continue with the related inventory work
Follow a difference to an explained outcome
Compare the first count, recount and review decision before deciding whether stock should change.