What should be inventoried before a QA vendor change affects quality scoring disagreements history?
Record classes, coverage, owners and the real end of access, for both the QA platform being replaced and the contact center suite that holds the recordings. A vendor change usually moves forms and future evaluations. Past calibration sessions and adjudication comments are the history most likely to stay behind in the old vendor's system.
| Record class | Usual home | Why it may not move | Ask the quality director |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed evaluations with item scores | QA platform | Only recent or open evaluations are imported | How many years of closed evaluations can still be reported on? |
| Calibration sessions, one score per reviewer | QA platform | Often stored as a separate session type the new tool does not map | When did calibration start, and how often did it run? |
| Adjudication and dispute notes | QA platform comments, email | Free text rarely survives a field mapping | Is the final ruling tied to the session, or kept elsewhere? |
| Scoring form versions | QA platform settings | Only the current form is rebuilt | Were old forms versioned or overwritten? |
| Call recordings and transcripts | Contact center suite | Separate system with its own retention | What retention setting applies, and has it changed? |
| Coaching records linked to scores | QA platform, LMS, team leads' files | Treated as HR, not QA | Who owns coaching notes and how long are they kept? |
A partner collects answers, not files: no recordings, score exports or logins. The QA scorecard data page describes what a scorecard record contains; this page is about making sure the history is counted before the old vendor's door closes.
Why does calibration history fall out of a QA vendor change?
Because calibration is a comparison, and migrations move single records. A calibration session holds several evaluations of the same interaction plus the one treated as correct. Genesys, for example, documents calibration sessions that keep scoring consistent across evaluators and let quality administrators compare scoring variations; one evaluation can be marked as the scoring index. If only individual evaluations are exported, the grouping and the index can be lost, and with them the record of which reviewer was overruled.
Three details are worth asking about:
- Agreement figures. Some teams tracked inter-rater agreement for calibration. McHugh's review of the kappa statistic explains why chance-corrected agreement was introduced: percent agreement alone ignores the agreement two reviewers would reach by chance. Ask whether the team kept agreement reports, and which measure they used. The figure itself is a useful metadata answer.
- Form drift. A disagreement in 2022 was settled against the form in force in 2022. If old form versions are overwritten when the new vendor's forms are built, past rulings lose their rulebook.
- Snippets that point to deleted audio. An evaluation that cites a call segment keeps the score even after the recording is purged. Note which years still have both.
One regulatory point can affect what still exists. If the center makes outbound telemarketing calls, 16 CFR 310.5 requires sellers and telemarketers to keep specified records, including call detail records, for five years. That is a retention duty for those records, not permission to license them, and it does not cover every QA artifact.
An illustrative inventory sheet
Illustrative only; the company and dates are fictional. A 350-person insurance services contact center is replacing its QA platform at the end of its vendor term. The quality director fills in the sheet from the migration plan, without opening any records.
| Record class | System | Years held | Owner | Moves to new vendor? | Reachable until |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Completed evaluations | Legacy QA platform | 2018 to now | Quality director | Last 12 months only | Old QA contract end |
| Calibration sessions | Legacy QA platform | 2020 to now | QA calibration lead | No | Old QA contract end |
| Adjudication notes | Platform comments and email | 2020 to now | QA calibration lead | No | Old QA contract end; mailbox policy for email |
| Scoring form versions | Legacy QA platform | Current form plus three archived | Quality director | Current form rebuilt | Old QA contract end |
| Call recordings | Contact center suite | Rolling retention window | IT and compliance | Not affected | Suite retention setting |
| Coaching records | LMS and team lead folders | Varies | Operations and HR | No | HR retention policy |
Reading the sheet: the classes at risk are calibration sessions, adjudication notes and archived forms, all tied to one contract date. The test to run before go-live is whether calibration sessions can be exported with reviewer, scoring index and comments intact. That answer comes from the company's own test, not a vendor's general claim. Contract terms on getting data out are covered in SaaS data export rights, and the data scope worksheet gives the company a format for its own counts.
Which dates set the real access deadline?
Use the company's documents, never an assumed date. Usually four matter: new vendor go-live, the end of the old QA contract, any read-only or export window after it, and the recording retention setting in the contact center suite. If none is written down, there is no deadline yet, and the next step is for the company to set one, not for a partner to invent urgency.
Do not recommend keeping data the company has no authority or reason to keep. Recordings capture customers' voices and personal details; the guide to recordings at platform retirement covers the notice, consent and redaction questions the company decides with its counsel.
Ask the quality director about coverage and rights
The quality director knows coverage; rights sit higher. Recording ownership can depend on client contracts and consent notices (see who owns call recordings), so counsel decides what could ever be licensed and what would need removing or de-identifying first. The person who can authorize a licensing discussion is the CEO, often with the COO or CFO sponsoring the conversation internally.
The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records, 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. Unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest, the rights review result and any terms. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions; attribution goes to the first valid introduction within the 90-day window, credited when the company submits a verified application. The reward calculation is on the rewards page, and other sectors are on the industries hub.
Go deeper on quality scoring disagreements
- Quality scoring disagreements exception examples: a worked case of two reviewers scoring the same call differently, through to the ruling.
- Quality scoring disagreements records across systems: a map of the IDs that join QA scores, recordings and adjudication notes.
- Who can license quality scoring disagreements records: a short answer on which executive to introduce and why.
- Quality scoring disagreements referral brief template: a fill-in brief for writing the company introduction.
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 the QA vendor change would strand years of calibration sessions with their rulings, register as a partner, check the company against who qualifies, and read the program terms before you send the quality director your brief.