# Lab correction histories referral brief template | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/resources/lab-result-correction-histories-referral-brief-template
Last updated: 2026-10-20

A company introduction about lab result correction histories fits on one page of metadata: lab size and type, the LIMS, instrument and quality systems, years of audit trail and report history, rough volumes of amended reports and nonconformances, who owns each system, the dated access event, what is known about rights, the one open question and the executive who can authorize a licensing discussion. Nothing else: no reports, sample data, client names or logins. Below is a blank template, guidance for the fields that need care, and one completed Illustrative brief.

This template belongs to the [lab result correction histories guide](/guides/workflow-lab-result-correction-histories), which covers what a LIMS replacement puts at risk. Use it once the laboratory director has agreed that the lab's records can be described, in general terms, to SourceX.

## Three things to settle before drafting

The brief closes a conversation; it does not open one. Draft it when:

- The laboratory director has agreed to sponsor an internal discussion.
- You know which executive can approve a licensing conversation. If not, the [who can say yes decision tree](/questions/who-can-license-lab-result-correction-histories-records) walks through it.
- You can fill most fields from what the director, quality manager or LIMS administrator told you, without opening any system yourself.

## The blank lab correction histories brief

Copy the table and complete the right-hand column with a phrase, range or role, each under twenty words.

| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Lab size and type | Full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded; clinical, environmental, materials or other; sites |
| Accreditation and rules | Which apply in general terms: CLIA, ISO/IEC 17025, FDA Part 11 work |
| Record classes | Which exist: raw instrument files, LIMS results with audit trails, reviewer comments, original and amended reports, nonconformances, CAPAs, SOP revisions |
| Systems and years | Each system by category with start year: LIMS, instrument data systems, quality system, report archive |
| Volumes | Rough amended reports per year and open-to-closed nonconformances, with whose estimate it is |
| Record owners | Who runs each system |
| Access event | Any dated change: LIMS replacement, legacy read-only end, instrument retirement |
| Rights known so far | Which records are believed to be client-owned and which the lab's own, pending review |
| Open question | The one thing nobody could answer yet |
| Authorized contact | The executive who can approve a licensing discussion, plus the director as working contact |

There is no field for report content, sample IDs or exports. Partners never ask for or handle raw client records.

## Guidance for the fields that need care

**Lab size and type.** The threshold is 50+ full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded. Type matters because a clinical lab adds patient privacy to every rights question.

**Accreditation and rules.** Name the frameworks only. Each one hints at what the lab is likely to hold: a clinical lab keeps first and corrected reports for a set minimum period, a 17025-accredited lab issues changes as a separate amended document, and FDA-regulated work implies change logs that keep the earlier value. That tells SourceX where to look without you describing any record.

**Systems and years.** Ask when the current LIMS went live and what happened to the one before. A break at a past migration is useful to record, not a reason to stop.

**Volumes.** "Roughly 300 amended reports a year, per the quality manager" is enough. Never pull counts yourself.

**Rights known so far.** Write what the lab believes, marked as belief, in a few words. Do not argue the point; settling it is the job of counsel and the review that follows an application.

## A completed brief (Illustrative)

Fictional laboratory, invented for this page; not a real case or a completed deal. The [worked copper unit case](/guides/lab-result-correction-histories-exception-examples) describes one of its corrections.

| Field | Completed entry (Illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Lab size and type | 280 full-time at peak, contractors excluded; environmental and industrial testing; two sites |
| Accreditation and rules | ISO/IEC 17025 accredited; no clinical work |
| Record classes | Raw instrument files, LIMS results with audit trails, reviewer comments, original and amended reports, nonconformances, CAPAs, SOP revisions |
| Systems and years | Current LIMS since 2016; instrument data systems by department; quality system since 2018; PDF report archive since 2012 |
| Volumes | About 300 amended reports a year and 60 nonconformances, per the quality manager |
| Record owners | Laboratory director for LIMS; department leads for instruments; quality manager for NCs and CAPAs |
| Access event | LIMS replacement next year; legacy system read-only for two years, per the vendor contract |
| Rights known so far | Client results client-owned; reviews, NCs and validation records believed to be the lab's own |
| Open question | Whether historical unit and method settings migrate with results |
| Authorized contact | CEO; laboratory director as working contact; counsel reviewing client agreements |

Read it as SourceX would. The full chain exists from 2016, the quality records from 2018, the access event is dated by the lab, the rights position is stated honestly as belief, and the open question is specific. The [system map for correction records](/guides/lab-result-correction-histories-records-across-systems) is the place to check the joins behind the "Systems and years" row before you send it.

## What the brief settles, and what review still decides

Once forwarded, the brief tells SourceX enough to decide whether a first call is worthwhile. It cannot tell anyone what the lab may license; that comes later, from contracts and review.

The lab also needs 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. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout. What stays unknown until SourceX reviews the brief: SourceX's current data needs, the rights result, what must be removed and any offer. 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.

Send the brief under a short covering note; the [warm introduction brief](/resources/a-warm-introduction-brief-for-a-business-owner) is a model. If the director asks who would use the data, [what an AI lab is](/questions/what-is-an-ai-lab) is a plain explainer. Laboratory businesses that tend to fit are under [testing laboratory data licensing](/industries/testing-laboratory-data-licensing), and other sectors on the [industries hub](/industries).

## 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.

When the laboratory director has read and approved the completed brief, [register as a partner](/register), check the lab against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before the LIMS cutover date is fixed.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-G/part-493/subpart-J/section-493.1105
- https://www.nist.gov/document/7-8-17025-crosswalk-reporting-results-20180201pdf
- https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-11/subpart-B/section-11.10