# Placement dispute referral brief template | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/resources/placement-guarantee-disputes-referral-brief-template
Last updated: 2026-10-19

A company introduction about placement guarantee disputes needs one page of metadata that the operations director can forward to the CEO: the business task, the record classes and the system that holds each, how many years and roughly how many claims exist, who owns each class, who can approve a licensing discussion, any access deadline and one open question. Nothing in it names a candidate, a client or a fee. The fill-in template below is followed by a completed illustrative example.

The template belongs to the [placement guarantee hub](/guides/workflow-placement-guarantee-disputes). If the approver is still unclear, settle that first with the [tree for placement guarantee](/questions/who-can-license-placement-guarantee-disputes-records) approvals.

## The fill-in brief

Copy the table, replace the right-hand column, and write "unknown" where nobody can answer yet.

| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Firm | Internal full-time headcount at peak, country, year founded; note separately that placed workers exist |
| Business task | One sentence: how refund, credit or replacement is decided when a placement fails inside the guarantee window |
| Hard case | The kind of dispute that is hardest to decide, in a few words |
| Record classes | Job orders with terms, placements, start-date corrections, claim cases, decision memos, credit notes |
| Systems | Which system holds each class, as plain product names |
| Years of history | Range in the current ATS, plus anything imported, and what the import dropped |
| Volumes | Rounded estimates from existing counts, labelled as estimates |
| Record owners | Role that runs each class: back office, account management, finance |
| Who approves | Sponsor, approver, and whether counsel is involved |
| Access deadline | A dated event from a contract or migration plan, with its source, or "none" |
| Open question | One thing only a review could answer |
| Not included | No candidate names, client names, fees, exports or logins |

## Five fields consultants usually get wrong

**Firm.** Staffing firms have two headcounts. Write the internal one and flag the other; do not add placed workers into the first number, because they do not count toward the 50. The [headcount question for staffing firms](/questions/do-staffing-firm-temporary-employees-count-toward-headcount) explains why the distinction matters.

**Years of history.** "Eight years" hides the detail an officer needs. Say what each period contains. One possible shape: six years in the current ATS with change requests, two earlier years imported as final values only. Bullhorn's support pages describe change requests as the control for edits after a placement is approved and note that a wrong start date is a frequent error at creation; its knowledge base lists a Change Request List for reviewing them. One sentence saying whether the firm used that control tells the reader how much of each period can be trusted.

**Volumes.** Use counts the firm already has, such as the number of claims under a CRM tag. Do not ask anyone to open the claims or run a new report for the brief.

**Access deadline.** Go-live dates are not deadlines. The date read-only access to the old ATS ends is. If the firm cannot confirm it, write "to confirm" and name the document that will.

**Open question.** It should be neutral and checkable. "Can role-change emails sent before the claims tag existed be tied to the placements they affected?" is good. "This history is very valuable" is not a question and implies an outcome.

## The brief completed for an IT staffing firm (Illustrative)

Fictional, written for this page. No real firm, client or candidate is described.

| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Firm | About 290 internal full-time staff at peak, United States, founded 2006; also employs placed contractors |
| Business task | Deciding refund, credit or replacement when a direct-hire placement fails inside the guarantee window |
| Hard case | The client changed the role after the candidate started |
| Record classes | Job orders with fee terms, placements with change requests, claim cases, decision memos, credit notes |
| Systems | ATS for job orders and placements; CRM for claims; accounting for credits |
| Years of history | Six years in the current ATS; two earlier years imported without change requests |
| Volumes | About 640 guarantee claims under the CRM tag (estimate); not opened for the brief |
| Record owners | Back office for placements; account management for claims; finance for credits |
| Who approves | Operations director sponsors; CEO approves; CFO and outside counsel advise |
| Access deadline | Read-only access to the old ATS ends on a date the firm will confirm from its vendor contract |
| Open question | Whether role-change emails before the CRM tag existed can be tied to the placements they affected |
| Not included | No candidate names, client names, fees, exports or logins |

Reading it, the CEO learns that six years of disputes can be found by tag and traced through change requests, that the two imported years are thinner, and that a vendor contract sets the clock. That is enough to decide whether to take a call. The [worked placement guarantee](/guides/placement-guarantee-disputes-exception-examples) dispute shows what one claim looks like inside these record classes if anyone asks.

## What not to send with it

- No sample claims, memos or credit notes, even redacted.
- No screenshots of ATS screens or report outputs.
- No client agreement, guarantee clause wording or fee schedule.
- No logins, report links or shared-drive paths.
- No promise about value, buyers or an offer.

The reason is simple: almost everything in a dispute file identifies someone. Under the EU GDPR, Article 4(1) treats any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, including by name or identification number, as personal data, and a placement ID tied to a resignation reason can qualify. Counts and categories do not.

## Before it goes to the CEO

- The operations director has read every line and confirmed the values are theirs.
- The firm appears to meet the baseline: 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), 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.
- You have signed the Channel Partner Agreement; attribution goes to the first valid introduction within the 90-day window, credited when the company submits a verified application.
- Client consent, de-identification, buyer interest and any offer are left open; they 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. Frame the covering note with the [warm introduction brief](/resources/a-warm-introduction-brief-for-a-business-owner) or the [client introduction email templates for staffing firm owners](/resources/client-introduction-email-templates-for-staffing-firm-owners). A neighboring workflow, two business units claiming the same candidate, is covered in [candidate ownership conflicts](/guides/workflow-candidate-ownership-conflicts).

## 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 brief fits on one page and the CEO has agreed to a call, [register as a partner](/register), check the firm against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms), then send the brief with your introduction.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://www.bullhorn.com/customer-blog/support-tip-requesting-placement-change-requests/
- https://kb.bullhorn.com/ats/Content/BHATS/Topics/changeRequestList.htm
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng