Skip to content

Reject Expense Report — Proposed Guide

Planned API — Reference Only

Reject Expense Report: A report rejection would communicate a review outcome for the submitted collection. The employee should be able to distinguish…

Overview

A report rejection would communicate a review outcome for the submitted collection. The employee should be able to distinguish report-level issues from individual expense issues.

Key concepts

Record a reason, reviewer and review snapshot. Preserve already recorded item-level decisions where the future contract permits it.

Implementation considerations

Define whether correction returns the report to draft or creates a new revision. Rejection must not erase audit history.

Proposed API behavior

POST /v1/expense-reports/{report_id}/reject is an illustrative design for this topic. Path and field names may change before implementation. Access would require an authorized organization context and operation-specific permission; no public API or authorization grant is available here.

Proposed path parameters
NameTypeDescription
report_idrequiredstringStable fictional report reference; not a secret and not evidence that a resource exists.
Illustrative request fields
NameTypeDescription
approval_idstringStable fictional approval reference; not a secret and not evidence that a resource exists.
reasonstringSynthetic structured justification, not a real reviewer note.
versionintegerIllustrative resource revision for detecting stale updates; no live concurrency contract is published.

Static example requests

Proposed, non-executing request examples
# Proposed request text only; this reserved host is not a live API.
curl -X POST 'https://api.remizen.example/v1/expense-reports/rpt_example_123/reject' \
  -H 'Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{
  "approval_id": "apr_example_123",
  "reason": "Example review explanation",
  "version": 1
}'

Fictional response example

200 (proposed example)Static response fixture

Fictional documentation data only. No request was sent, record created, review performed, payment initiated or provider connection activated.

JSON
{
  "data": {
    "report_id": "rpt_example_123",
    "approval_id": "apr_example_123",
    "reason": "Example review explanation",
    "version": 1,
    "id": "rpt_example_123",
    "organization_id": "org_example_123",
    "expense_ids": [
      "exp_example_123"
    ],
    "status": "rejected"
  },
  "meta": {
    "request_id": "req_example_123",
    "reference_only": true
  }
}

Illustrative error case

Review this failure case in context: Define whether correction returns the report to draft or creates a new revision. Rejection must not erase audit history.

422 (illustrative; final error contracts are undecided)Proposed error fixture

Synthetic diagnostic example. Human-readable messages must not be used as stable programmatic contracts.

JSON
{
  "error": {
    "code": "validation_error",
    "message": "The proposed reject expense report operation requires review of its input or authorization.",
    "request_id": "req_example_123"
  }
}

Proposed data types

Illustrative field dictionary
NameTypeDescription
report_idstringStable fictional report reference; not a secret and not evidence that a resource exists.
approval_idstringStable fictional approval reference; not a secret and not evidence that a resource exists.
reasonstringSynthetic structured justification, not a real reviewer note.
versionintegerIllustrative resource revision for detecting stale updates; no live concurrency contract is published.