# Rejected deliverable revision, worked example | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/deliverable-acceptance-revisions-exception-examples
Last updated: 2026-11-04

The records that explain a deliverable exception are the acceptance criterion in the contract, the revision that missed it, the reviewer comment that named the miss, the response that set out the fix, the corrected revision, and the signed acceptance. Kept together and dated, they show what went wrong, who decided each step and how the result was checked. The case below is Illustrative: one report that passed every format check and still failed acceptance.

This worked case is part of the [deliverable acceptance revisions guide](/guides/workflow-deliverable-acceptance-revisions), which covers what to inventory before contract closeout. Here the focus is one hard case, step by step, and what makes its record sequence worth describing in an introduction.

## The deliverable and the criterion it missed

A fictional 260-person environmental engineering firm holds a federal remediation contract. Deliverable D4 is a site assessment report due in week 14, and the milestone invoice is released only on acceptance. Criterion 3.2 in the statement of work requires groundwater results for all 12 monitoring wells. This is not a real project, client or completed deal.

The exception is easy to miss because everything visible is right. Revision 0 uses the correct template, carries a signed cover letter, sits within the page limit and passes the firm's own document control checks. It reports results for 9 wells. Three wells were dry on the original sampling day, and the field team noted it in a log that never reached the report.

## Six decisions, in the order they were made

Each step names who decided and what they decided. That is the part a deliverable library alone cannot show.

1. **The project manager submits Revision 0.** Decision: the report is ready. Basis: internal checklist, which tests format and completeness of sections, not criterion coverage.
2. **The client's technical reviewer rejects it.** Decision: criterion 3.2 is not met. The comment reads "Section 4 omits wells 10 to 12; criterion 3.2 not met." Under FAR 46.407, the contracting officer should reject services that do not conform in all respects, and notices of rejection must give the reasons promptly. The comment is that reason, in writing.
3. **The firm's principal chooses a fix.** Decision: resample the three wells rather than argue that dry wells excuse the gap. Basis: the criterion's wording and the delivery schedule. FAR 46.407 ordinarily gives the contractor a chance to correct within the schedule, which is what this choice uses.
4. **The project manager writes the response matrix.** Decision: each comment gets an action, an owner and a page reference. The matrix links comment to fix.
5. **The reviewer checks Revision 1.** Decision: 12 of 12 wells reported, with lab reports cited; no further comments.
6. **The contracting officer signs acceptance.** Decision: the deliverable conforms. Under FAR 46.501, acceptance acknowledges conformance with the contract's quality and quantity requirements and is ordinarily evidenced by an acceptance certificate. The milestone invoice is released.

This is general information, not legal advice.

## Decision-to-record ledger (Illustrative)

The evidence asset for this case: every decision above, matched to the record that captured it and the system that holds it.

| Step | Decision maker | Record that captured it | Where it lives | Dated? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Project manager | Revision 0 with transmittal | Document control | Yes, transmittal date |
| 2 | Client technical reviewer | Comment citing criterion 3.2 | Comment log or transmittal response | Yes |
| 3 | Firm principal | Resampling instruction and field work order | Email and field log | Partly; email only |
| 4 | Project manager | Response matrix | Document control, attached to Revision 1 | Yes |
| 5 | Client technical reviewer | Closed comment status | Comment log | Yes |
| 6 | Contracting officer | Acceptance certificate; invoice release | Contract file and finance system | Yes |

Step 3 is the weak cell. The choice to resample instead of contest was made in an email thread, and the field log that explained the dry wells sits in a different system. In a real inventory, that row would read "partly", which is a fact to record, not a reason to stop.

Step 1 is the most fragile row in practice. The rejected report survives only if Revision 0 was kept as its own record with its own file. If someone tidied the closed project by deleting superseded revisions, the chain starts at step 2 with a comment about a document nobody can read.

## Why a rejected revision outweighs the accepted one

The accepted report shows an answer. Revisions 0 and 1 together, with the comment between them, show a qualified reviewer applying a written standard to real work and the firm choosing how to respond. That pair carries three things that are hard to find elsewhere:

- **A grounded failure.** The miss is tied to a numbered criterion, not to taste.
- **A traceable correction.** The response matrix links each comment to a specific change.
- **A checked outcome.** The acceptance certificate has a defined meaning, so the end state is not a matter of opinion.

Evaluations of AI on professional tasks, such as [GDPval](/questions/what-is-gdpval), compare model output with the work of experienced practitioners, and [long-horizon agent tasks](/guides/long-horizon-tasks-ai-agents) depend on multi-step work with checkpoints. Whether any particular firm's revision chains are useful for that is a question for SourceX's review and for buyers, not for the partner. The partner's job is only to recognize that the chain exists and is intact.

## How to recognize the same pattern at a client

Ask the program operations director five questions. Each answer is metadata.

| Question | A yes suggests | A no means |
|---|---|---|
| Do deliverables have numbered acceptance criteria? | Comments can cite them | Rejections are harder to interpret |
| Are rejected revisions kept, with their own files? | Step 1 survives | The chain starts mid-way |
| Do reviewer comments name the criterion missed? | Clean link from failure to standard | Comments need human reading to link |
| Are response matrices filed with the next revision? | Fix is traceable | The correction is implied, not recorded |
| Is the acceptance record dated and tied to a revision number? | The chain closes | The end state is ambiguous |

Three or more yes answers across several years of contracts is a pattern worth a short note. The [records across systems map](/guides/deliverable-acceptance-revisions-records-across-systems) shows the identifiers that join these records, and the [referral brief template](/resources/deliverable-acceptance-revisions-referral-brief-template) turns the answers into a forwardable handoff. The same chain shape appears in other workflows, as the guides to [logistics exceptions](/guides/how-to-identify-logistics-exceptions-and-their-documented-resolutions) and [project histories with decisions and outcomes](/guides/how-to-recognize-project-histories-that-include-decisions-and-outcomes) show.

## Who to introduce and what stays open

The program operations director is the right first contact; the CEO (in an owner-run firm, usually the owner) decides whether to discuss licensing, often with the COO involved and counsel reading client and government data rights clauses. Many service contracts assign the deliverable itself to the client, while the firm keeps its review logs and response matrices, so which records are the firm's to license is unknown until SourceX's rights review. So are de-identification needs, SourceX's current data needs and any offer. Partners never collect revisions or comments; discovery stays at counts, years, systems and owners.

The firm needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a 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 70% of the data is in English. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement first; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application.

## Next step

> **Refer a company. No cap on rewards.** Default reward on a company's first qualifying transaction: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, including the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.

If a client keeps its rejected revisions and the comments that sent them back, [register as a partner](/register), check the firm on [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before you raise it with the program operations director.

## Sources

- https://www.acquisition.gov/far/46.501
- https://www.acquisition.gov/far/46.407
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms