Wet-Stock Variance: A Practical Investigation Workflow

Use one comparison window

Define the opening and closing times for the tank and the sales records being compared. Check whether a delivery, shift change or maintenance event occurred near either boundary. A tank reading taken before a delivery should not be compared casually with a sales report ending afterwards. Store the original timestamps alongside the values. Agree how the team will handle a missing or delayed reading instead of quietly filling the gap with an estimate.

Understand each source of measurement

Identify the tank, connected ATG device where used, manual-check procedure and relevant pump or controller records. Ask the implementation team to confirm which devices the proposed Infinity configuration can read and how frequently information is updated. Discuss measurement interpretation with the responsible equipment specialist. A software display can organise readings, but it does not by itself establish the physical accuracy of a sensor or determine why a difference exists.

Review deliveries as complete events

A delivery investigation should include the recorded quantity, receiving time, receiving tank and the supporting documents used by the business. Examine whether sales continued during the receiving window and how the accepted process accounts for that activity. Ask who can correct an entry and how the original information remains traceable. The objective is an understandable record of receipt, rather than a single manually adjusted stock figure with no explanation attached.

Reconcile movement before assigning a cause

Compare the opening position, accepted receipts, recorded issues and closing position using the business's approved method. Review test activity, transfers or corrections if those occur in your operation. Confirm that the same product and tank are used throughout. Do not attribute a variance to leakage, theft or equipment failure merely because a dashboard flags a difference. Those conclusions need investigation and appropriate technical evidence beyond the numerical comparison.

Create an exception register with a next step

Record the affected period, original values, difference, evidence reviewed and investigation owner. Distinguish a data correction from a physical investigation. If an explanation remains unconfirmed, mark it as unconfirmed rather than choosing the most convenient category. Set a review date and preserve the source records. Repeated small differences become easier to assess when the station can compare their circumstances without rebuilding the history from several spreadsheets and messages.

Choose reports that support action

Ask for a demonstration using a sample period with a delivery and an unresolved difference. Check whether the proposed report exposes the underlying records and lets an authorised reviewer follow the sequence. Decide who receives an exception and who can close it. Use the shift reconciliation checklist alongside wet-stock review so financial settlement and fuel movement can be discussed together without treating them as the same control.

Useful next steps

• Review forecourt integration scope
• Connect the review to shift closing

Ask iPOS to demonstrate the proposed variance review using your measurement sources, equipment list and receiving process rather than an assumed standard station. Discuss your requirements with iPOS.