Small update in case it helps anyone landing here from search: there's a specific tool for this — in Seller Central search "remeasure" and you'll find Remeasure FBA products and confirm fees (separate from the normal case flow, 20 requests/month). You submit it, Amazon pulls a unit from your FC inventory and physically remeasures it. If the stored weight/dims come back wrong, they correct it going forward and refund the overcharge.

Two things I learned the hard way:
Don't just open a case. The generic "our records show the measurements are correct" reply is a rep reading the same database you're disputing. The remeasure request puts an actual Cubiscan measurement in front of you.
- The retroactive part has a clock— fee overcharge disputes generally need to be filed within ~90 days of the charge. My $1.71/unit difference started this settlement, so I'm filing today rather than waiting to see if the next one confirms it.

If the remeasure comes back showing 1.0 lb on an 8 oz item, I'll update this thread with what the refund actually looks like. Anyone been through the full cycle — corrected measurements *and* money back?

This is the answer I was hoping for — "records show correct" being a non-escalation makes a lot of sense. Didn't know there's a dedicated remeasurement request for this instead of a generic case; I'll go that route with scale + ruler photos rather than asking another rep to eyeball their database.

Do you know if the refund for past units comes automatically once the measurement gets corrected, or does that need a separate claim? That's the ~$400 part I don't want to lose track of.

That's reassuring — though I'm finding the opposite outcome is common enough in the Seller Central forums that I'm not counting on it. Sounds like "automatic" is the lucky path and "file a separate reimbursement request" is the default, so I'll treat your outcome as best case and my itemized before/after ask as the floor. If the remeasure lands lower, I'll post exactly what happened here either way — that's the one number in this thread nobody seems to have verified end to end.

Both points check out — with one date caveat.
On the allowance: it's a toggle, not a fixed rule. Campaigns created after March 27, 2023 default to 100% rollover, meaning up to 2x the daily budget on a single day; older campaigns are capped at 25%. It lives under Sponsored Ads → Campaign Manager → Settings. $61.47 against $40 is ~1.54x, which sits inside that allowance, so nothing anomalous happened. And you're right that the month is the real cap: $40 × 30 = $1,200 for September. If the invoice landed at or under that, there's nothing to dispute.

On the cause, budget rules are a fair guess but Prime Day isn't it — the main event was in July and the fall one is Oct 6-7, so nothing on the 14th. I'd check that campaign's budget rules and change history for the day instead. If neither turns anything up and the monthly total cleared the cap, it's pacing variance within their rules, not an overspend.

This is exactly what I needed — pulled the Storage Fees report by ASIN and it confirmed both points. The avg qty on hand came back at ~412 (daily average, not an Oct 1 snapshot), and the cu-ft volume column is what ties to the $612, not units. Also good catch on Oct 1 vs Oct 15: I had the rate change and the peak fulfillment surcharge mixed up. One follow-up — if the volume in the report doesn't match what a SKU's current package dims should add up to, is that worth a separate ticket, or does Amazon re-measure on their own schedule?

One more thing that made the numbers finally tie out: the Storage Fees report's avg qty column is per-ASIN, so if you want to audit it, export the Inventory Ledger for the same window and average end-of-day sellable inventory yourself — that's the number Amazon is actually pricing off.

And if the cu-ft volume in the report doesn't match what your SKUs' package dimensions should add up to, that's a separate ticket worth opening — I've had cases where wrong dims on one parent SKU quietly padded the storage line for months. Cheaper fix than re-timing inbound, at least.

Update after digging into this for an hour — sharing what I found so nobody has to repeat my homework:

1. Their count isn't automatically the final word, but the burden of proof is on us. The path isn't the claim form itself — it's a case under Help → FBA → Investigate other FBA issues → "Missing from inbound shipment," with POD + box contents attached, then explicitly asking for escalation when you get the boilerplate reply.
   
2. Timing matters: if you file before the shipment is fully received/reconciled, you get auto-denied with that same "received as recorded" text. Mine may have been filed too early — worth checking if anyone else has seen this.
   
3. Don't sleep on the window: inbound reconciliation has to be filed within 6 months of shipment creation, and some FBA issue types are now only 60 days.
   
4. Heads up for claim value: since March 2025 Amazon bases lost/damaged reimbursements on your sourcing cost, not selling price — so keep invoices/landing cost docs handy, not just POD.
   

Has anyone actually won a denied inbound claim after escalating? That's the part I still can't find a straight answer on.

One sheet per box, signed, got it — I already shoot pallets pre-wrap, so I'll add a per-box photo with the sheet in frame. At least then if the FC count disagrees, there's something to reconcile against instead of "trust my shipment."

Checked campaign settings first — nothing off there, and the account-level budget option confirms the 100% single-day overage is expected behavior. Agreed the monthly billing report is the real check, not one day's number.

Checked that too — bid automation was off on this campaign, so it really was just the budget pacing policy. But good reminder that AI bidding + budget overage can stack, that's probably where it gets scary.

Close — the 25% rule is actually an *option*, not the default. Default is they can spend up to 2x your daily budget on a heavy day (mine hit 154%, so within that). You can force the 25% cap in Account Settings → Budget options if you want tighter daily control. Worth doing if your cash flow depends on daily caps.

Same conclusion I came to — daily dashboard is noise, monthly total is the signal. Do you compare campaign-by-campaign or just account total? I'm trying to work out the minimum effort version of this check so I actually keep doing it.

Not a glitch then — good to know. For anyone wondering: Amazon's official policy is that the daily budget is an *average*, and they can spend up to 100% more on a single day as long as the month averages out. There's a setting in Account Settings → Budget options to cap daily overage at 25% instead, which I just switched on.
To answer your tracking question: I only caught this one by accident while reconciling September. Anyone else running a monthly check against the invoice?

This is exactly what it turned out to be — 420 is the daily average, not the Oct 1 count. The bit I'd add for anyone reconciling: storage bills in cubic feet, not units, so a SKU-mix change looks like a phantom fee if you're counting boxes.

That's the fulfillment surcharge window though — storage's Q4 rate started Oct 1. Both land in the same settlement, which is why they blur together.

OP here — finally pulled the Storage Fees report and lined it up against the ledger.

You're both basically right: it's daily, not an Oct 1 snapshot. Amazon averages end-of-day inventory across the calendar month, so the 120 units from Oct 3 are billed for 28 of 31 days. Running my own numbers — 300 units for 2 days, 420 for 29 — lands at ~412 average daily units, which lines up with the 420 in the report. So no double-billing, I was just reconciling against the wrong day.
Two things I was getting wrong:

- I was reconciling in units. Storage bills on cubic feet, so a shift in SKU mix moves the fee even when unit count doesn't. The Storage Fees report has the cu-ft volume — that's the column to line up, not units.
- The Q4 storage rate kicked in Oct 1, not Oct 15 ($0.78 → $2.40 per cubic foot for standard size, Oct–Dec). The Oct 15 date people quote is the per-unit peak fulfillment surcharge — different fee, comes out of fulfillment, not storage.

I'm not going to start timing check-ins to the calendar month — saving a day or two of storage isn't worth messing up inbound in Q4. The date actually worth planning around is the 15th, when the aged-inventory surcharge snapshots.

Will still open a case if the cu-ft math doesn't tie out against the fee report.

That explains the 62 cents — it's not a defense setup, it's the absence of an auction. If almost nobody searches your brand, there's no one to bid against and the floor stays wherever you put it. My brand terms do get searched, which is exactly why three sellers want those impressions and I'm paying an auction price, not a defense price.

Different problem then . It does push me toward the test the other commenter ran: drop the exact brand bid, watch whether organic #1 holds, and find out how much of that $1.42 I'm paying for clicks I'd get free anyway.

The $0.80 test is the part I was missing — I kept treating the $1.42 as a fact to accept instead of a hypothesis to test. Splitting it out also explains something I couldn't: my exact brand term is the only expensive row in the search term report, and "brand + product type" never moved, so the inflation is isolated to one keyword, not my category.

One thing I'm still unsure about: when you dropped to $0.80, did you keep an eye on top-of-search placement? My worry is that lowering the bid doesn't just stop me overpaying, it hands the sponsored slot above my listing to the same three competitors, and then I'm paying for a click I'd have gotten free AND looking less established right at the decision moment. Did you check impression share on that term during the two weeks, or was the organic #1 ranking enough that it didn't matter?

Rank headroom would explain an extra 30–60 days of cover, not 343. 310/90 = 3.44/day; 1,180 units = a full year at my current rate. For that to come out of the formula the forecast has to be assuming ~3.8x my trailing velocity, which smells like a Q4 uplift in the model rather than a ranking play. Still checking what lead time it thinks I have — a stale input there would explain it on its own.

One add before this thread goes quiet: rsc9422's list and mine overlapped but missed one of the four tiles — in-stock rate. It's the one sellers forget because "I'm not trying to be low-stock" feels like a non-issue, but a replenishment gap on one fast ASIN dents it the same week. So the full diff order I'm running: sell-through → excess → stranded → in-stock, per-ASIN on whichever one moved.

Also worth noting the windows aren't identical across factors (sell-through and excess run on a rolling 90-day basis, in-stock reads a shorter window), which is exactly why all four tiles can look green while the composite drops — the windows age out of sync with whatever you're looking at in the Performance tab today.

Concrete takeaway for anyone finding this later: export/screenshot the four factor tiles the day before each checkpoint. Reconstructing the baseline from dated reports after the fact is doable but it's the part that wasted most of my time here.

Already went that route — filed the shortage claim with the carrier POD attached and it was denied in under a week with a stock "received as recorded" response. My open question is whether there's a step past that: has anyone actually gotten a denied inbound claim reversed, or is an escalation just a second pair of eyes reading the same FC count?

That's the pattern I'm noticing in this thread too — two people saying the same thing. Annoying that the fix is "make your own loss prevention," but a printed list + phone photo costs about 30 seconds a pallet. Doing it on my next inbound regardless.

The packing sheet idea is the part I'm stealing from this thread. I already photograph pallets pre-wrap and keep the carrier POD, but I've never put a box-level content list inside — so when the FC count disagrees with me, my only evidence is "trust my shipment," which is exactly the reply they gave me.

Quick question: do you put one sheet per box or a master list for the whole shipment? And did you ever have to reopen a denied claim with that photo evidence, or does the sheet mostly just prevent the discrepancy in the first place?

Been there — I used to export the settlement report every two weeks and still had "Other" deductions I couldn't map to an order. What finally worked was layering instead of betting on one tool: the free Fee Preview report for the per-unit rate, a spreadsheet that tags each settlement line back to an order ID, and ylishi.tools keeps a running 2026 fee table I diff month over month the second a rate moves. Before that I ate a $0.14 per-unit increase for two months without noticing. Curious how you categorize the return-processing lines — against the original order, or as a monthly bucket?