Contractor invoicing & payment preparation

Recorded hours were only part of contractor pay. The business also needed to handle bonuses, flat-fee responsibilities and amounts promised in an earlier period. Those additions had to be connected to the right person and date without becoming billable charges to a client.

The resulting process separated recording an entitlement, preparing an invoice, obtaining a signature and releasing a payment. Automation moved information between stages; the operating instructions explained where a person still needed to check the result.

The payroll scenario was started manually in Make / Integromat. It selected active Harvest users who had recorded time and produced PandaDoc invoice drafts. In the demonstrated operating version, Noah temporarily held the document-sending step so additional fees and bonuses could be reviewed first.

This was preparation of contractor invoices on the contractors’ behalf. It was separate from the client-invoicing system. The inputs, recipients and review responsibilities were different, even though both processes used information from the agency’s production work.

An operations procedure recorded additional amounts as Harvest expenses associated with the relevant teammate. Notes identified the purpose and, for a bonus, the applicable week. The procedure explicitly turned off the client-billable setting because these were internal business expenses.

The date mattered beyond the next invoice. If an earlier award had been missed, recording its original date retained the context needed to understand internal expenses for that period. The procedure was presented as a new, changeable working method rather than a finished accounting policy.

Selecting the current payroll period did not establish whether an older amount had already been paid. The walkthrough retained a manual comparison with earlier invoices and explicitly included an unpaid item outside the current period.

A later procedure described expense-bearing contractor invoices being left as drafts. The operator selected the person’s expenses, checked the relevant period, added the appropriate fees in PandaDoc and then sent the invoice. This was a related operating version, not evidence that the temporary send hold and every later branch were active together.

If an operator could not access or record expenses for another person, the instruction was to raise the permission issue for correction. The process depended on people being able to maintain the source record, not simply on the scenario existing.

Once a contractor signed the PandaDoc document, the connected workflow prepared a Wise payment draft. The final release remained a human action: choose the payment option, inspect the prepared payment and push it through.

The handover said that currency conversion was handled while the transaction was prepared. That describes the narrated workflow, not independent verification of conversion accuracy or a completed bank transfer. Earlier historical-invoice work had also raised unresolved currency-reconciliation questions, so it would be misleading to describe every past payment as automatically reconciled.

The documented result is an administrative chain from recorded work through reviewable invoice preparation to signature-triggered payment drafting. Its most important operating feature was that exceptions had a place: additional amounts were recorded, older items could be reconciled and payment release had an identifiable owner.

The workflow prepared contractor invoices and payment information for review, with approval boundaries explained during handover.