This worked case is part of the candidate ownership conflicts guide, which covers what a merger can overwrite. Here we follow one hard case from first call to placement, so an ATS implementation partner can see what useful exception evidence looks like and recognize it at a client.
The setup: two units, one candidate, no shared view
Illustrative. A fictional 260-person recruiting firm formed when two regional firms merged. For the first year after the merger, each legacy unit kept its own ATS records with department-level visibility, so a recruiter in unit A could not see unit B's candidates. Both units served the same corporate client, which runs a vendor portal for supplier submissions and recognizes the first complete submission through that portal. Not a real case or a completed deal.
Who could see what is the hinge of the whole case. Bullhorn's documentation says its duplicate check ignores records the user cannot view, so depending on privileges it may cover only the user's own or department's records, although it does include archived records. A recruiter adding someone a colleague in another department already holds may get no warning at all, and nobody did anything wrong.
Step by step: from first call to placement
- Day -5. Unit B logs a call. A unit B recruiter speaks with a finance candidate about controller roles and logs the call as an ATS activity. No representation agreement is recorded.
- Day -2. Unit A gets written consent. A unit A recruiter, who cannot see unit B's record, reaches the same candidate and receives a written agreement to be put forward for a specific controller requisition. The email is filed to unit A's candidate record.
- Day 1, 09:14. Unit A submits. Unit A submits the candidate through the client's vendor portal. The portal stores a timestamp; unit A's ATS records a submittal.
- Day 3, 16:40. Unit B submits the same person. Unit B submits the candidate to the same requisition. The portal flags a duplicate. The client's system, not the firm's, is the first to notice that one person arrived twice.
- Day 4. The client asks for one owner. The client's program office emails the firm and cites its terms: the first complete portal submission wins.
- Day 6. Commercial operations adjudicates. The commercial operations head awards the client-facing claim to unit A on the portal timestamp, and records a 70/30 internal credit split (70 to unit A, 30 to unit B) because unit B's call came first. The note cites both timestamps, the client clause and the internal policy.
- Day 40. Placement. The candidate is hired through unit A. The placement record links to the adjudication note.
The record chain behind each decision
Each step above produced a decision, a decision-maker and a record. Laid side by side, they form the chain a reviewer would want.
| Step | Decision | Who decided | Record that captured it | Where it sits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day -5 | Log first contact | Unit B recruiter | Call activity | Unit B ATS |
| Day -2 | Accept representation | Candidate, with unit A recruiter | Filed consent email | Unit A ATS |
| Day 1 | Submit to requisition | Unit A recruiter | Portal timestamp and ATS submittal | Client portal and unit A ATS |
| Day 3 | Submit again | Unit B recruiter | Portal duplicate notice and ATS submittal | Client portal and unit B ATS |
| Day 4 | Require one owner | Client program office | Client email and agreement clause | Shared inbox and contract file |
| Day 6 | Award claim and split credit | Commercial operations head | Adjudication note citing both timestamps | Unit A ATS note or manager inbox |
| Day 40 | Confirm the outcome | Client hiring manager | Placement linked to the note | Unit A ATS |
The weakest link is usually day 6. Adjudication notes often live in a manager's inbox rather than on the candidate record, and without them the outcome on day 40 has no stated reason.
Why this sequence is useful evidence
Most staffing data shows what happened: a submittal, a placement, a fee. This chain also shows why, at the moment it was decided. It has an initial problem (a duplicate submission), a rule (the client's first-complete-submission clause and the firm's internal policy), an authorized action by a named role (the commercial operations head), and a checked result (the placement under the winning unit).
It also contains a disagreement the rule had to settle. Unit B was first to speak with the candidate; unit A was first with consent and first through the portal. The adjudication records how the firm weighed the two. Decisions with competing facts, a cited rule and a known outcome are exactly the kind of work record that is hard to reconstruct later and easy to lose in a merge. The same shape appears in other sectors; compare logistics exceptions and their documented resolutions.
Recognizing the same pattern at a client
An ATS implementation partner rarely sees a case laid out like this, but the signs are visible in ordinary project work:
- A merger or acquisition with two ATS instances or two departments that could not see each other's candidates.
- Access settings restricted by department or office, which explain why duplicates were never caught at entry.
- Client portals that issue duplicate notices, which means the client side holds an independent timestamp.
- Two versions of a client agreement, one per legacy unit, each with its own ownership clause.
- A named adjudicator, usually the commercial operations head, and a written internal credit policy.
- Notes outside the ATS, in inboxes or spreadsheets, which tells you where the decision records may be at risk.
If four or more apply, the firm probably holds a history of conflicts with stated reasons. The system map for these records shows how the pieces join.
What a partner can note, and what waits for review
Note the pattern, the rough number of adjudicated conflicts a year, which systems hold each record and how many years can still be joined. Do not open candidate records, collect portal screenshots or copy notes. Where EU law applies, anything that identifies the candidate by name or ID number is personal data under the GDPR, and even the timestamps in this chain are attached to a person. Candidate data in the ATS raises its own ownership questions; see who owns candidate data in a staffing firm's ATS. The who can say yes decision tree covers authority after a merger.
The introduced firm needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application. Buyer interest, the rights review result and any offer stay unknown until SourceX reviews it. If you also advise the firm in a paid capacity, disclose the referral; the operating partner conflict-of-interest answer sets out how. More staffing record types are on the staffing and recruiting page.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a client's adjudicated conflicts still carry both timestamps and a cited rule, register as a partner, check the firm against who qualifies and read the program terms before you raise it with the commercial operations head.