# Billing workflow evaluation — fictional test kit

Use a trial or account you are authorized to operate. Run the same scenario in GetESAPaid, your spreadsheet and any competing product. No real student data is needed.

## Scenario

Provider: Example Reading Studio, 100 Example Lane.
Learner references: Sample Learner A and Sample Learner B.
Services: A receives 60 minutes of reading at $75/hour, then 30 minutes at $75/hour. B receives 60 minutes at $60/hour.
Expected amounts: $75, $37.50, $60; total $172.50.
Correction: the second session for A was entered incorrectly and actually lasted 45 minutes. Its corrected charge is $56.25; corrected overall total is $191.25.
Payment: allocate $75 to A's first invoice and $30 to B's invoice. Total received $105; corrected expected less received $86.25. This is a fictional no-fee agreement.
Next period: prepare a new invoice for A without retaining last period's service dates or reusing its invoice number.

## Run these tasks

1. Prepare per-student invoices with clear service dates and quantities.
2. Retrieve the supporting service records.
3. Correct the second session while preserving the original submitted version or an equivalent traceable history.
4. Record the partial payment without calling the whole balance paid.
5. Prepare the next billing period and check duplicate-session/number behavior.
6. Export or retrieve enough evidence for another authorized person to explain the balance.

## Record for each product and task

- Product, plan, version or date, and actual account access used.
- Tester familiarity and any training received before the run.
- Start/end times; separate initial setup from repeat-period work.
- Completed unaided / completed with help / not completed / not tested.
- Manual work, errors and recovery steps.
- Evidence file reference; exclude credentials and private information.
- What the test does not establish.

Do not label a capability absent because it was not found in a quick attempt. Check official documentation or support and label uncertainty. Do not call automated browser timings a human usability benchmark. Repeat the scenario with a real provider before making time-saving claims.

## Decision

Which recurring job does this product make easier for this provider? Which existing tool should remain? What switching work is required? What evidence would change the decision?

Competitor outcomes are intentionally unfilled until tested. This kit is not a published ranking or a customer case study.