Overlapping sales exports: find repeated rows without losing real sales
Compare two overlapping exports with line references, reconcile repeated amounts and distinguish duplicate candidates from legitimate repeated services.
A second export may include sales already present in the first file. Importing both can inflate the close even when each file is individually correct. The task is to identify repeated source lines while preserving genuine sales that merely look similar.
The useful part
Compare stable references and item detail, inspect both candidate rows, and record which copy is retained. A matching name, date and amount alone is not enough evidence to delete a sale.
Establish whether the second file replaces or extends the first
Ask why the second file exists. It may cover an overlapping date range, correct a prior export, include another location or contain only newly added rows. Record the report filters and export time for each file before combining their data.
Keep both originals. If a new export replaces the old one, use a reviewed replacement process rather than appending it automatically. If it extends the period, compare the overlap first. File names such as “final” and “final2” do not reliably describe which source records changed.
Reconcile the overlap explicitly
This fictional AUD example uses supplied exclusive bases and one 40% service rate. File A includes three lines. File B includes two of those same lines plus one new sale. Each reference below represents a distinct source item.
Appending both files yields $650.00 of basis. The repeated $150.00 is counted twice, so the reviewed basis is $500.00. At 40%, the unreviewed $260.00 commission becomes $200.00 after the duplicated $60.00 is excluded.
| Item reference | File A | File B | Accepted once |
|---|---|---|---|
| L-301 | $200.00 | — | $200.00 |
| L-302 | $100.00 | $100.00 | $100.00 |
| L-303 | $50.00 | $50.00 | $50.00 |
| L-304 | — | $150.00 | $150.00 |
| Total | $350.00 | $300.00 | $500.00 |
Choose evidence that identifies an item, not just an invoice
Prefer an original line identifier when the source supplies one. Otherwise compare the invoice reference together with date, staff attribution, item, category and amount. A single invoice can contain several legitimate services or products, so an invoice-reference match alone is too broad.
Matching all displayed fields still creates a candidate for review, not certainty. Two identical products can be separate legitimate lines. Inspect quantity, item identifiers, source row numbers and the original invoice when available. Preserve those extra source columns even if they are not part of the calculation.
Treat changed copies as corrections that need investigation
Suppose L-302 is $100.00 in the first export and $90.00 in the second. That is no longer an exact repeated row. It might be a discount correction, a partial refund represented differently, or a different item sharing a reference. Do not accept both or automatically discard the older one without checking the source.
Staff-name changes, renamed services and category corrections can also prevent an exact match while referring to the same economic activity. Compare the underlying invoice or item record and retain a note explaining which version belongs in the draft.
Review the candidates in a safe order
- List the files, their filters, export times and intended relationship.
- Find candidate matches using the most reliable shared item fields.
- Inspect both source rows and any available item identifier or quantity.
- Retain one evidenced copy of each repeated item and record the excluded copy’s source.
- Reconcile the removed basis and commission to the difference between combined and accepted totals.
- Check the remaining rows for earlier closed-period references before finalising.
Understand what automatic matching can and cannot prove
Trimsum flags exact duplicate candidates and blocks accepted sale identities already in finalised records. Corrections retain the original import identity. A fresh row with the same reference, date, item and amount but changed staff or category raises a similar-sale question requiring an explanation. Changed references, item descriptions or amounts can still prevent that comparison, so keep the source evidence and review changed copies deliberately.
The public duplicate finder lets you inspect candidate rows without deleting the file. Use it to make the overlap visible, then record the keep-or-exclude decision in the recurring close. A tool should help you identify the question; the original item evidence supplies the answer.
Put it to work.
Compare matching rows and inspect the source details before deciding what to retain.
Find duplicate candidates