# Warranty dispute records system map | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/warranty-eligibility-disputes-records-across-systems
Last updated: 2026-10-18

Reconstructing a warranty eligibility dispute needs four links: the parent asset to its components, the old serial to the new one after a swap, the component to the warranty terms in force, and the claim to its appeal, approval and any supplier recovery. Each link is a key that has to appear in two systems. Where a key was overwritten or never entered, the dispute can only be rebuilt from notes, and that gap is worth recording.

This system map is part of the [warranty eligibility disputes guide](/guides/workflow-warranty-eligibility-disputes), which explains what makes a claim a dispute. This page does a narrower job: it shows where each record lives and which identifier carries a case from one system to the next.

## The four systems and what each holds

A mid-sized equipment company usually spreads a dispute across four places, each run by a different team.

- **Asset platform.** The installed base: each machine, when it went into service and the parts nested beneath it. In Microsoft's Field Service that nesting is explicit, with a parent field on each child record, and Microsoft's asset management module offers a dedicated replace action for swapping a worn-out child part for a new one.
- **Field service tool.** Work orders, technician notes, parts consumed and returned-part tags. This is often where a swap is first written down.
- **Warranty system.** Coverage and claims. In Salesforce Field Service, coverage can be inherited from the product model or set per unit. Claims, rejection reasons, appeals and sign-offs usually live here too.
- **Accounts payable or purchasing.** Supplier recovery: the claim the company makes against its own component supplier, and the credit that comes back.

## System map: record, linking key and owner

The table is the map. Read each row as one record type and the key it must share with the row above.

| System | Record | Linking key | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset platform | Install record for the parent machine | Parent asset ID, install date | Service operations |
| Asset platform | Component entry under the parent | Parent asset ID plus component serial | Service operations |
| Field service tool | Work order recording the swap | Work order number, old and new serial | Field service manager |
| Asset platform | Replacement history (old serial retired, new serial added) | Old serial mapped to new serial | Service operations |
| Warranty system | Product or asset warranty terms | Asset ID, warranty type, start and end dates | Aftermarket or product management |
| Warranty system | Claim and rejection reason | Claim ID, component serial | Warranty administration |
| Warranty system or email | Appeal and final approval | Claim ID, approver name | Aftermarket operations head |
| Accounts payable | Supplier recovery claim | Claim ID or recovery number | Purchasing |

Read down the linking-key column and every value should appear twice: once in the row's own system and once in a neighbor. A key that shows up only once is a dead end, and the case stops there.

## The joins that break when a component is swapped

Three joins fail more often than the rest, and all three fail at the moment of a swap.

1. **Serial edited in place.** If a technician overwrote the component serial instead of using a replace function, the old serial disappears from the asset tree. The claim on the new part then has no history to point to.
2. **Component never entered as a sub-asset.** If the component tree stops at the parent machine, the swap is visible only in work order notes, and the asset platform cannot say which part was installed when.
3. **Coverage not re-attached.** A replacement part may carry no product or asset warranty record at all unless someone creates one, so an automatic rejection follows.

A fourth join breaks later, during a dispute: approvals given by email rather than as a field on the claim. The decision happened, but the claim record only shows a status change.

## One fully joined dispute (Illustrative)

Fictional. A 260-person packaging machinery service company maintains filling lines for food plants. One case, joined across all four systems:

| Step | System | Record | Key that carries the case forward |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Asset platform | Filler F-210 installed, gearbox G-3307 entered as a sub-asset | Parent asset ID F-210 |
| 2 | Field service tool | Work order 44817: G-3307 replaced by G-5512 in month 11 | Work order 44817, both serials |
| 3 | Asset platform | Replace action retires G-3307, adds G-5512 under F-210 | Old-to-new serial link |
| 4 | Warranty system | Standard terms on F-210; no asset warranty created for G-5512 | Asset ID F-210 |
| 5 | Warranty system | Month 19 claim on G-5512 rejected: no coverage found | Claim ID 7702 |
| 6 | Warranty system | Appeal cites work order 44817; aftermarket head approves | Claim ID 7702, approver |
| 7 | Accounts payable | Recovery claim to the gearbox supplier | Recovery number tied to claim 7702 |

Every step shares a key with the step before it, so the case can be followed without anyone's memory. Remove step 3 and the claim at step 5 has nothing to point back to. The [warranty claims data page](/data-types/warranty-claims-data) covers claims in general, and [field service histories](/data-types/field-service-histories) covers the work order side.

## What the map cannot show, and how to test it with the company

Some context rarely reaches any system: the warranty policy wording in force in a given year, and phone calls between the service manager and the approver. Write those down as unknowns rather than filling them in. The [logistics exceptions guide](/guides/how-to-identify-logistics-exceptions-and-their-documented-resolutions) applies the same discipline to shipment disputes.

To test the map without touching records, pick one recent dispute the team remembers and ask them to name, from memory, the key that carried it across each hop in the table. Where they hesitate, mark the hop as uncertain. Where they say "it's in the notes", mark it as a text-only join. Neither answer disqualifies the company; both tell SourceX's review where to look first.

Then confirm the basics. The company 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 90% of the data is in English. What each platform can export, what dealer, supplier and customer contracts allow, and any buyer interest stay unknown until SourceX reviews them. The [who-can-say-yes tree](/questions/who-can-license-warranty-eligibility-disputes-records) identifies the executive to introduce, and the [eligibility checker](/tools/data-licensing-eligibility-checker) gives a quick first pass. If a register cleanup is coming, the [retention timeline](/guides/preserve-warranty-eligibility-disputes-records) shows which of these keys disappear first.

## 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 aftermarket team can follow a disputed claim from install record to supplier recovery using keys rather than memory, [register as a partner](/register), check the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before you make the introduction.

## Sources

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/field-service/assets
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/supply-chain/asset-management/objects/move-replace-and-install-objects
- https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.fs_record_product_warranties.htm&language=en_US&type=5
- https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?language=en_US&id=sf.fs_warranty_fields.htm&type=5
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms