# Nonconformance referral brief template | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/resources/nonconformance-disposition-referral-brief-template
Last updated: 2026-10-19

A good introduction about nonconformance disposition fits on one page and contains only facts the company already knows: plant size, the business task, the record classes, the systems and years they cover, rough NCR volumes, any real access event, who owns the records, who can authorize a discussion, and one honest open question. It contains no records, exports, drawings, customer names or logins. The template below gives each field, and a completed Illustrative brief shows the finished result.

The brief is the handoff piece of the [nonconformance disposition guide](/guides/workflow-nonconformance-disposition). The quality director should be able to forward it to the CEO without editing, so write it in the company's own words, not in sales language.

## Before you fill it in

Collect the answers in one conversation with the quality director. Each field below has a "where the answer comes from" column so nobody has to open a record or run an export to complete it. The CEO can authorize and sign; for unusual ownership situations, the [licensing authority decision tree](/questions/who-can-license-nonconformance-disposition-records) helps; if the answer to "do the records join up?" is unclear, the [nonconformance system map](/guides/nonconformance-disposition-records-across-systems) gives the five keys to ask about.

Two rules apply throughout. Use ranges and "about" where exact numbers are not known. And never describe what a QMS or MES product can export as fact; the company confirms that with its own vendors.

## The blank brief: twelve fields

Copy the field names and replace the guidance with the company's answers.

| Field | What to write | Where the answer comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Company size | Full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded | Quality director or HR |
| Location and data language | Country, and whether records are mainly in English | Quality director |
| Business task | One sentence on which dispositions the records cover | Quality director |
| Record classes | Defect reports, review board minutes, inspection results, customer waivers, rework orders, re-inspection | Nonconformance procedure |
| Systems | Current QMS, MES or ERP, inspection tool, mailbox, older spreadsheets | Quality and IT |
| Years of history | Go-live year of each system and what came before | System records |
| Approximate volume | Reports per year as a range; share that went to the review board | QMS dashboard |
| Access event | Planned migration or contract end, with the date if one exists | IT or vendor contract |
| Customer restrictions | Whether quality agreements may limit reuse; yes, no or unknown | Quality director; counsel |
| Open question | One thing nobody can answer yet about how the records join | Quality director |
| Sponsor and signer | Who owns the records; who can authorize a licensing discussion | Org chart |
| Not shared | A plain statement that no records, exports or drawings are included | Always the same |

Customer restrictions earn their own row. ISO 9001 auditing guidance has auditors check that product released under concession was approved by a relevant authority and, where applicable, by the customer. Files of that kind often carry the customer's own terms, so flagging the question early saves time later. For device makers, add one line on regulatory context; the [QMSR transition guide](/guides/qmsr-transition-consultant) explains how FDA's new quality regulation, in effect since February 2, 2026, bears on their quality systems.

## A completed brief (Illustrative)

Illustrative only; the company and figures are invented to show the finished shape.

> - **Company size:** about 280 full-time employees at peak, one plant.
> - **Location and data language:** United States; records in English.
> - **Business task:** deciding the disposition of nonconforming machined and anodized aluminum parts for industrial customers.
> - **Record classes:** defect reports with inspection results, review board minutes, customer waiver requests, rework orders, re-inspection results.
> - **Systems:** current QMS (live since 2018), MES for lots and routings, inspection software for coating and dimensional data, quality mailbox for customer waivers, spreadsheets before 2018.
> - **Years of history:** about eight years in the QMS; spreadsheet years to be confirmed.
> - **Approximate volume:** roughly 1,000 to 1,200 reports a year, about one in five sent to the review board.
> - **Access event:** QMS migration planned for next year; legacy read-only access end date is in the vendor contract.
> - **Customer restrictions:** unknown; two large customers have quality agreements counsel has not reviewed for this purpose.
> - **Open question:** when a part passed dimensions but failed coating thickness, was the re-inspection after rework always linked to the original NCR?
> - **Sponsor and signer:** quality director (sponsor), CEO (can authorize a first call).
> - **Not shared:** no records, exports, drawings, customer names or logins.

Notice what the example does not say. It does not promise the records are licensable, guess at buyer interest, or estimate a reward. Buyer interest, the rights result, any offer and any reward stay unknown until SourceX reviews the opportunity. 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 never goes in the brief

- **Records of any kind:** no report copies, screenshots of the quality system, inspection files or board minutes.
- **Customer identities:** "two large customers" is enough; names come later, if ever, under the company's own agreement.
- **Credentials or access:** no logins, VPN details or shared drives.
- **Forecasts:** no reward estimates, payout guesses or claims about demand.

For general wording on the first message, the [warm introduction brief](/resources/a-warm-introduction-brief-for-a-business-owner) offers a template that works alongside this one. For background on how manufacturers think about this, see [manufacturing data monetization](/questions/manufacturing-data-monetization-ai), and other sectors are on the [industries hub](/industries).

## Final check before it is forwarded

Run five checks before the quality director forwards the brief:

1. **Fit.** The introduced 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.
2. **Signer named.** The brief names someone who can authorize a discussion, not only the record owner.
3. **One open question.** Exactly one honest unknown, phrased so the company can answer it later.
4. **Nothing attached.** The "not shared" line is true.
5. **Partner paperwork.** You have signed the Channel Partner Agreement; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application.

## 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 quality director has approved the completed brief and the CEO has agreed to a first call, [register as a partner](/register), check the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies), and read the [program terms](/terms) before you submit it.

## Sources

- https://committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/tc176/files/PDF%20APG%20New%20Disclaimer%2012-2023/ISO-TC%20176-TF_APG-CustomerCommunication.pdf
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://refer.sourcex.si/rewards