Keep duplicate copies from creating duplicate intake tasks

Resolve duplicate evidence before creating more work

Check whether the content is truly identical before consolidating, so duplicates do not inflate the queue or hide a correction.

If supplier invoice PDFs need to become a business-expense workbook, test that step in ParseMill. It extracts invoice fields and line items for your review and Excel export. For tax forms, package completeness and preparer handoffs, bring one recurring bottleneck to a scoped workflow review.

Duplicate-looking filenames are only a clue. A client may scan the same paper twice, forward a cleaner copy or supply a corrected form under the same name. The decision needs enough content comparison to distinguish repeated delivery from a meaningful change, without assuming that all visually similar files are identical.

Use a candidate-duplicate check

Compare apparent issuer, recipient, period, document type, page count and visible content. Record the original artifact reference and new arrival reference. For exact file copies, an approved technical comparison can help, but a different file representation may still contain the same evidence. Do not use a filename match as the sole decision.

TaxDome: PDF editing explains that saved PDF edits replace the previous version, while TaxDome: Merge and split files describes creating merged output without changing original inputs. These mechanics show why derived files can differ from their sources. This proposed intake check therefore preserves provenance and asks what evidence changed, rather than treating every new file as a new requirement.

Compare three arrival patterns

The synthetic cases below all concern an already expected document. Each produces a different next action, even though a client might call every arrival another copy.

Keep the comparison note short but specific. Same evidence, recipient and period checked is more useful than duplicate without a basis. If a required page is missing from one copy, record which artifact supplies the complete evidence and retain the relationship between them.

Consolidate tasks without erasing history

Choose the existing requirement as the work anchor. Close or merge redundant follow-up tasks according to your system's supported process, retaining a pointer to the surviving task. Check whether any reminder is still active against the duplicate so the client does not receive a request for evidence already linked elsewhere.

• Confirm the comparison covers every relevant page.
• Preserve the arrival date and channel of each copy.
• Keep one owner for the evidence review.
• Route changed content as a version question.
• Record the surviving task reference when consolidating work.

If two staff members have already started reviewing different copies, reconcile their notes before closing one task. Otherwise a useful observation may disappear with the redundant task. Do not delete source material merely to reduce a dashboard count or make the package appear simpler.

Check the outcome from both directions

From the requirement, a reviewer should find the selected evidence and all relevant arrival history. From the later arrival, staff should find the surviving review task. Test both directions on a small sample before making duplicate consolidation routine across a large package.

Use the related workflow guide for broader intake controls and the workflow audit checklist to distinguish repeated delivery from repeated work. The useful outcome is fewer redundant requests and reviews while preserving corrections, cleaner copies and meaningful differences for the preparer.