Renewals can be created and updated through Claude
Until now Claude could list your upcoming renewals and nothing more. You can now ask it to add a renewal or change one — the product, the customer, the renewal date, the term, the amount — the same way you already work with quotes, purchase orders and invoices.
Renewals were reporting blank fields that were never blank
This is the part worth reading.
When Claude read your renewals, nine fields came back empty on every single one — the product name, the stage it was at, its renewal and end dates, the term, the amount and the cost. In one organisation that was all 44 renewals, every time.
The values were in your records the whole time. Claude was reading the wrong ones, and an absent field looks exactly like an empty field, so it reported "nothing recorded" about data that was sitting right there. Anyone who asked "what's renewing next month and for how much?" got an answer built on blanks.
Two of those fields were being reported for data that does not exist at all — a supplier link and a margin figure that renewals have never carried. Those are gone rather than renamed, because the honest answer to "what's the margin on this renewal?" is that renewals do not track one.
The same problem turned out to affect three other places, all fixed here:
- Prepaid hour balances came back with no balance — the one number that tool exists to report.
- Supplier type and contact email were blank on every supplier.
- Purchase orders and quotes each offered a field that was never filled in.
If you have asked Claude about renewals or prepaid balances recently and something looked emptier than it should have, that is why, and it is worth asking again.
The product catalogue can now be read, not just written
Last release gave Claude the ability to set which accounts a product posts to. It could not read them back. That sounds like a small gap and it was not: the only way to see a product's accounting codes was to change the product and look at what came back — editing a record in order to read it.
Now:
- Your product list shows both accounts, with the account code and name next to each, not just an internal reference. A code you recognise is one you can check against Xero; an internal reference is not.
- You can ask for a single product by its code or from the list, and see its full details including its accounting.
- You can ask for exactly the products that are missing an account — all of them, only the ones missing a revenue account, or only the ones missing a cost account — instead of paging through the whole catalogue. Asking "how many products still need accounts?" is now one question with a real number as the answer.
Products with half their accounting set are no longer silent
A product can have a revenue account and no cost account. That is arguably worse than having neither, because everything reports as fine while the cost side quietly falls through to a default — so margin by product line comes out wrong with nothing indicating it.
- Every product now says whether its accounting is complete, both accounts or not.
- Adding or changing a product warns you if you set the revenue side and leave the cost side empty.
- Quotes report it too. A quote could say every line was linked to the catalogue while the items behind those lines had no accounts at all. Quotes now report how many lines are missing a revenue account and how many are missing a cost account, separately, because the two are fixed by different decisions.
- Adding a quote line can now set both accounts when it creates a new catalogue item. Previously it could only set the revenue one, which meant every product created that way started off half-classified.
Nothing here refuses to save. If you sell something with no meaningful cost side, that is your call to make — you are told, not blocked.
A correction to what we told you last release
Last release's notes said that in one organisation we looked at, not one catalogue item had a revenue account set. That was wrong, and it is worth correcting plainly.
That figure was produced by reading the catalogue through the very tool that could not report the field — so it saw nothing and reported that as a finding. Looking again with the read that now works: of the first hundred products checked, the large majority already had both accounts set.
We are deliberately not replacing one confident number with another. The products checked were the first hundred alphabetically, and product codes group by supplier, so that is one corner of a catalogue rather than a fair sample of it. The honest position is that some products do still need accounts, and the tooling in this release is what tells you how many — which is the question we should have been able to answer before making a claim about it.