Staff attribution: distinguish who did the work from who took the payment
Check staff fields, confirm aliases and reconcile service-provider attribution with a worked example where cashier mapping changes the result.
The staff name beside a transaction may identify the service provider, the person who processed payment, the booking owner or another role. Those fields are not interchangeable. Commission reconciliation begins by identifying which role the recorded calculation is intended to follow.
The useful part
Map the staff field that matches the intended attribution, confirm ambiguous names and preserve the original source value. A matching overall total does not prove that the amounts belong to the right people.
Inspect the meaning of the staff column
Open a source transaction whose history is known. Compare the service provider, payment processor and any sale-credit field with the names in the export. Use the report’s field definitions to confirm what the selected column represents; do not infer its meaning from the column position.
Write the selected source field into the import record. If different reports attribute the same transaction differently, keep both roles available as evidence. A payment processor can be useful for tracing an event without being the intended recipient of the service commission.
See how the wrong staff field changes the result
This fictional AUD example uses supplied exclusive bases. The intended calculation follows the service provider. Mia’s service rate is 40%; Noah’s is 45%. Each person processes payment for the other person’s service.
| Source line | Service provider | Payment processor | Basis | Intended commission |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-801 | Mia | Noah | $200.00 | Mia · $80.00 |
| S-802 | Noah | Mia | $100.00 | Noah · $45.00 |
| Total | — | — | $300.00 | $125.00 |
The wrong mapping produces $130.00
Using the payment processor would give Noah $90.00 and Mia $40.00. The total changes by $5.00 and both staff allocations are wrong.
Treat name matching as a separate check
Once the right role is selected, confirm which person each source name identifies. “Mia Chen”, “Mia C” and “M. Chen” might refer to one person, but a similar-looking name is not proof. Use a stable source staff identifier or a confirmed team register where available.
Preserve the original name alongside any confirmed mapping. Case and extra spaces are usually harmless formatting differences, while initials, changed surnames and reused display names need more care. Never overwrite the source export merely to make an unmatched name disappear.
Check each person even when the overall total matches
If both staff in the example had a 40% rate, the total would be $120.00 under either mapping. The wrong field would still allocate $80.00 to Noah and $40.00 to Mia instead of the intended reverse. A correct grand total can therefore conceal an attribution error.
Compare each staff member’s accepted source lines and subtotal. Ask whether known services appear under the expected person and investigate unfamiliar items. This check is more informative than comparing only the sum across the team.
Build a traceable attribution check
- Identify the role required by the recorded commission process.
- Confirm the selected export field against known source transactions.
- Match each source staff value to a confirmed team member or leave it unresolved.
- Record the evidence for aliases and keep the original source name.
- Inspect staff subtotals and a sample of their contributing item lines.
- Separate split-service or shared-credit cases for an explicit method outside a simple one-person mapping.
Do not disguise unsupported attribution
A service shared by two staff needs evidence of the intended allocation. Copying the full sale to both people can double the basis; assigning it to the payment processor can hide the split entirely. Document the allocation before preparing any supported itemised calculation.
Trimsum’s flat-rate CSV workflow calculates against the attributed staff value on each line. It does not discover who performed a service or automatically decide a split. Use the staff-name matcher to inspect source values, then retain the confirmed attribution evidence with the close.
Put it to work.
Compare source names with your team list and identify values that need confirmation.
Inspect staff-name matches