Reopen a rejected attachment with a precise correction request

Reject the failed check, not the whole contribution

Describe the exact problem and the replacement needed so the client has a fair chance of getting it right next time.

Your request system handles the chase. When the reply contains supplier invoice PDFs that need to become an Excel schedule, try ParseMill for that next step: extract, review against the source and download a workbook. Reminder scheduling stays in your current tools.

Distinguish wrong period, missing pages, unreadable content, wrong entity and unsupported format. Each needs a different instruction. “Please resend correctly” gives the client no reliable way to improve the next attempt and makes repeated exchanges more likely.

Record the rejection basis

Use fields for original requirement, supplied file, failed acceptance check, correction needed, owner and next action. TaxDome: Document actions provides document detail and preview functions; TaxDome: Request actions describes responding to and managing requests. Use those capabilities to preserve context, but write the actual reason in terms a client can understand.

If the source is merely unfamiliar, ask the reviewer before rejecting it. A file can differ from a preferred format while still meeting the requirement. Do not turn a staff preference into an unsupported claim that the evidence is invalid.

Write three precise corrections

Synthetic examples show how a failed check leads to a narrow request.

Do not request an entire package again when one missing page would resolve the gap, unless a complete replacement is needed to verify integrity or context. The reviewer should decide that requirement explicitly.

Link the replacement without erasing history

When a corrected file arrives, associate it with the same requirement and the rejected source. Repeat the failed check and the ordinary acceptance checks. A clearer image can still concern the wrong transaction, and a complete statement can still cover the wrong period.

If the replacement fails differently, record the new reason. Preserve the earlier rejection so another handler can see whether the request was clear and whether the client addressed it. Avoid overwriting the original filename or receipt date in a way that hides the correction sequence.

Check the next reminder

After acceptance, remove the correction request from routine follow-up. If it remains unresolved, send the current specific issue rather than the first rejection text. If the client cannot supply a usable replacement, route an evidence-gap decision to the reviewer instead of continuing an endless resend loop.

A useful test uses a wrong-period file followed by a correct replacement and then a separate unreadable file. Staff should produce different instructions for each. the related workflow guide gives the wider chasing process, and the workflow audit checklist can capture correction causes and actual handling time.