How to redact a Booking.com commission review sample
A practical guide to keeping the invoice and reservation fields needed for a focused commission review while removing guest, payment and account data.
A useful commission review sample keeps the facts that explain a charge and removes information that identifies a guest, reveals payment data or gives access to an account. The aim is not to make the record vague. It is to create the smallest accurate sample that can answer one defined review question.
Start with the property type, invoice period and issue you want to understand. Share a limited redacted sample only after the review fit is confirmed and you receive separate transfer instructions.
Work from a copy, never the operational original
Create a separate working copy for one property and one monthly invoice. Keep the source file unchanged in the hotel's normal system. Give the redacted copy a clear period and version name, and have a second person check it before it leaves the property's control.
Keep only fields that explain the commission question
The exact fields depend on the line being reviewed. In most focused samples, the reviewer needs enough information to compare the invoice line with the latest reservation state, without needing to know who the guest is.
| Usually keep | Remove or replace | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Invoice period, invoice date, currency and line order | Hotel bank details, tax identifiers not needed for the question | Preserves the review context without expanding the sample. |
| Commissionable value, rate, commission amount and adjustment | Card numbers, payment tokens and payout account details | Keeps the calculation evidence while excluding payment data. |
| Latest booking status and relevant stay or change dates | Guest name, email, phone number, address and message history | Shows the operational state without identifying the guest. |
| A consistent local reference such as CR-001 | Full reservation number, confirmation code and direct links | Lets rows be matched inside the sample without exposing the source identifier. |
| A short explanation of the review question | Staff names, signatures, credentials and internal access notes | Keeps ownership and access information outside the review file. |
Preserve the evidence, not the identity
Redaction should not change the figures or statuses being tested. Keep the original currency, amount, commission rate, final reservation status and any date that materially explains the charge. Replace direct identifiers consistently so the same reservation still has the same local reference across the invoice and comparison sheet.
Avoid cropping away column headings, minus signs, currency symbols or status labels. A heavily cropped screenshot can look safer while making the calculation impossible to interpret. A small structured table is often easier to check than a collection of screenshots.
A five-step redaction workflow
- Define one question. For example, whether a modified stay uses the latest value shown in the property's source record.
- Select the minimum period. Use one monthly invoice and only the lines required to answer that question.
- Create local references. Replace each reservation identifier with a stable label such as CR-001 or CR-002.
- Remove identifying and access data. Check hidden columns, comments, file properties, formulas, links and extra tabs as well as the visible cells.
- Run a second-person check. Confirm that the file still answers the defined question and no direct guest, payment or account data remains.
Fictional before-and-after example
| Source field | Do not share | Focused sample |
|---|---|---|
| Reservation | Guest name and full confirmation code | CR-001 |
| Final status | Cancelled — guest message attached | Cancelled |
| Final accommodation value | AUD 640 with payment details | AUD 640 |
| Invoice line | Full invoice screenshot | AUD 640 basis · 15% · AUD 96 commission |
| Review question | Internal email thread | Confirm whether the cancelled status changes the commission basis. |
The example is fictional. A highlighted difference is a review point, not proof of an incorrect charge or a recoverable amount.
Final safety check before transfer
- one property and one defined invoice period;
- no guest names, contact details, addresses or message history;
- no card, bank, payout or payment-token data;
- no Booking.com, PMS, email or cloud-storage credentials;
- no hidden tabs, comments, formulas or file properties containing identifiers;
- figures, currencies, statuses and relevant dates remain accurate;
- a second person has checked the redacted copy.
Review a fictional commission result first.
Understand the format before deciding whether to request a focused review. No real hotel, guest or booking data is used.
Ready to ask about fit?
Use the initial request form to describe the invoice period and the question you want to resolve. Do not attach a file at this stage. If the review is suitable, LodgeRoot will confirm the next step and provide separate instructions for a limited redacted sample.
Request a founding free check →
This guide is practical operational information, not legal, privacy, accounting or tax advice. Apply the property's own privacy, retention and information-security requirements, and review the LodgeRoot privacy notice before sharing any information.
About this guide
Prepared and reviewed by the LodgeRoot Operations Team as practical workflow guidance for independent accommodation teams. It separates review flags from confirmed errors and links to primary sources where a platform-specific point is discussed. Verify contractual, accounting, tax and platform decisions with the relevant source or adviser.