The allowance reason and its code do not designate the same thing
When a document level allowance (BG-20) carries both a reason in plain text (BT-97) and a reason code (BT-98), the two must indicate the same type of allowance.
Only the issuer holds this value: Factlint reports it and never fabricates it. Test your invoice to find out whether it is affected.
The message your validator prints
Copied verbatim from the sealed artefact: this is the exact sentence the check prints when this rule fails.
[BR-CO-05]-Document level allowance reason code (BT-98) and Document level allowance reason (BT-97) shall indicate the same type of allowance.
Quoted from schematron-cen 1.3.16, licensed under EUPL-1.2.
Common searches around this code
These phrases mirror what an integrator searches for: code, syntax, rule, business field and correction.
Test your file with this error in mind
Upload the invoice involved: the report will say whether this code appears, where it appears in the document, and whether Factlint can only report it or also fix it.
To automate this check in an ERP flow, call the validation API and link every returned code to its public page.
Why this error happens
The code comes from a closed list (UNCL 5189), the text is typed by an operator. They diverge as soon as a wording is reused for an allowance of another kind: the code stays the template's while the text follows the commercial case.
How to fix it
Align the text with the code, or the code with the text. Which of the two prevails depends on what the allowance actually is: nothing in the file settles it.
XML correction example
<ram:ReasonCode>95</ram:ReasonCode> <ram:Reason>Frais de dossier</ram:Reason>
<ram:ReasonCode>95</ram:ReasonCode> <ram:Reason>Remise</ram:Reason>