A supplier statement matching exactly one order is easy to attach. Actual work can involve several partial statements for one order or one source containing lines for several project sites. The archived request asks to connect received statements to the relevant site's orders. I found a useful design story in separating the identity of an original file from its business relationships, rather than treating every attachment as a private accessory belonging to just one document.
One original can have several relationships
Using a file at two sites does not require two independent originals. A system can add links to an existing source instead of asking for another upload. The preserved implementation stores received statements and order relationships separately. Keeping the source identity while connecting several orders makes it possible to trace where that evidence is used without losing track of which copy contains the authoritative original.
The reverse relationship also matters. One order can have several statements because delivery was partial. The presence of the first attachment must not mark the whole order complete. A file establishes that material is available to inspect; it does not prove arrival of every requested unit. An owner-facing overview should distinguish attachment present from fulfillment complete, otherwise a reassuring document badge can conceal work that still needs to happen.
Do not count the whole source amount at every site
Imagine a synthetic statement containing amounts for two sites. Linking it to both and adding its full amount to each site's purchases would double the company total. The source link exists so a person can inspect evidence. Assigning purchase amounts to a site is a separate business decision. An interface should distinguish the original's overall total from the portion actually reviewed and attributed to the selected site.
Unknown values must remain possible after an upload. Filling them with zero or assuming they equal the purchase order would hide differences that the statement is meant to reveal. Actual quantities or prices can differ from the original request. Preserve the request while carrying reviewed values into a new internal record. That leaves a reason for the difference instead of retroactively changing the earlier document to make the comparison appear perfect.
Correcting a link is different from replacing a source
Deleting an original because it was connected to the wrong site, then uploading it again, can break the history. Preserved usage notes describe retaining sources and recording a reason when a relationship is cancelled. Existing downstream purchase records also need attention. Hiding an attachment does not explain the amount that remains elsewhere in the system. Corrections should account for that relationship rather than removing only the visible symptom.
File names, dates and document numbers may themselves be unresolved. Content identity and business identity therefore need separate checks. A byte hash can help identify repeated files; it does not authorize performing the same purchase operation twice. Conversely, different bytes might represent two scans of the same business evidence. A file hash alone should not be advertised as a complete business-duplicate detector. It supports one part of the investigation.
Show the work that remains after an upload
After preserving a source, staff may still need to review links, compare quantity and price, prepare a purchase draft and confirm it. Payment is another event. An upload-success screen can make this whole sequence look complete unless the next review and unresolved values remain visible. An owner also needs to distinguish evidence collected from evidence reviewed, rather than relying on the number of attached files as a progress measure.
Before integration, use synthetic cases covering several partial statements for one order, one original linked to several orders, allocation across sites and correction of a mistaken link. Check that totals do not multiply and that the original and downstream records remain traceable. This article examines selected preserved code and dated records. The actual supplier originals were excluded from the supplied archive, and I did not recheck current ledger relationships. Preserving the file and preserving the meaning of the work are both parts of a dependable attachment design.