# Store transfer referral brief template | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/resources/store-transfer-discrepancies-referral-brief-template
Last updated: 2026-10-19

An introduction about store transfer discrepancies needs six facts, all at metadata level: how big the company is, which systems hold transfers and receipts, how many years they cover, roughly how many transfers and variance cases a year, who owns each record set, and which executive can authorize a licensing discussion. Add one open question and any real date. The brief never contains a transfer order, a scan file, a receipt or an employee name.

This resource belongs to the [store transfer discrepancies guide](/guides/workflow-store-transfer-discrepancies). The guide explains why a short transfer leaves an evidence trail; this page gives a retail ERP partner a template to describe that trail to a client's leadership in under a page.

## Template: six fields and two notes

Copy the block below into an email or document. Fill each line from what the client's team tells you. Where nobody knows, write "not known yet". Estimates are fine when they are labeled as estimates.

> **Store transfer discrepancies: introduction brief**
>
> 1. **Company profile:** sector, number of stores and distribution centers, full-time headcount at peak, countries where records are kept.
> 2. **Systems in the chain:** the system that creates transfer orders, the warehouse or scanner system at dispatch, the store POS or receiving app, where variance cases are logged.
> 3. **Years of history:** first year with usable records in each system, and any older system that was replaced.
> 4. **Volumes:** transfers per year, share that end with a quantity variance, adjustments per year with a reason code (ranges are fine).
> 5. **Record owners:** who administers each system and who decides retention.
> 6. **Authorized contact:** name and role of the executive who can open a licensing discussion.
>
> **Open question:** one thing nobody can answer yet about the records.
> **Real dates:** store closures, system retirements or contract end dates that affect access, with where each date comes from.

Two lines are notes rather than fields because they change the reading of the other six. The open question tells SourceX what to look at first. The dates tell the company whether there is any reason to act before a planned event, and they must come from the company's own plan, not from the partner.

## Where each answer comes from

Most fields can be filled in one call with the inventory operations head. The table shows who usually knows each answer and what to avoid.

| Field | Usually answered by | Ask in these words | Do not request |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company profile | Inventory operations head, public website | "How many full-time staff at the busiest point of the year?" | Payroll or staffing files |
| Systems in the chain | Inventory operations head, IT lead | "Where is a transfer created, scanned out, received and investigated?" | Logins or screenshots |
| Years of history | System administrator | "From which year can someone still run a transfer report?" | A sample report |
| Volumes | Inventory control analyst | "Roughly how many transfers a month, and how many end with a variance?" | Variance exports |
| Record owners | Inventory operations head | "Who looks after each system, and who sets how long data is kept?" | Retention schedules |
| Authorized contact | Inventory operations head | "Who would decide whether to discuss licensing this history?" | A meeting before they agree |

The systems field deserves a precise answer, because the rules differ by platform. A Dynamics 365 Commerce store, for instance, receives only what the warehouse has posted as shipped and cannot record more, while NetSuite marks a transfer received through an item receipt. Naming the real platforms tells SourceX which mismatches software would have blocked and which ones staff had to settle by hand. Do not state export capabilities; the company's administrator confirms those later.

## A completed brief (Illustrative)

The company and every figure below are fictional. The example shows the level of detail to aim for, built from the pattern described in the guide: a partial shipment posted as complete.

> **Store transfer discrepancies: introduction brief (Illustrative)**
>
> 1. **Company profile:** home goods chain, one distribution center and 38 stores, about 520 full-time staff at peak season, all records in the U.S. and in English.
> 2. **Systems in the chain:** transfer orders in the ERP; carton scans in the warehouse system; receipts in the POS back office; variance cases in a shared tracker since 2021, email before that.
> 3. **Years of history:** about seven years in the warehouse system and the POS back office; four years of tracker cases.
> 4. **Volumes:** roughly 41,000 transfers a year; the inventory team estimates 3 to 5% end with a variance; adjustments carry reason codes since the 2020 ERP upgrade.
> 5. **Record owners:** warehouse systems manager for scans; retail systems lead for POS; inventory control manager for the tracker; finance sets retention.
> 6. **Authorized contact:** inventory operations head to convene; CEO to decide.
>
> **Open question:** when a partial shipment is posted as complete, does the tracker case record how the gap was resolved and who approved the adjustment?
> **Real dates:** seven stores close next quarter under the published store plan; their POS back-office data moves to archive at closure, per the retail systems lead.

## Reading the example the way a reviewer would

A brief earns attention through its weaknesses as much as its strengths. Four points in the example matter:

- **Field 3 is uneven, and says so.** Scans and receipts go back seven years, but investigation notes only four. Cases before 2021 may show the gap and the adjustment without the reasoning between them. Stating that is better than implying a complete chain.
- **Field 4 uses a range from the team.** "3 to 5%" is an estimate from people who run the variance report. That is honest; a precise invented figure would be checked during review and would cost credibility.
- **Field 6 separates convening from deciding.** The inventory operations head arranges the conversation. The CEO decides. The [licensing authority page for these records](/questions/who-can-license-store-transfer-discrepancies-records) explains why technical ownership is not authority.
- **The date is real and sourced.** Store closures come from the company's own plan. If there were no planned event, the line would read "none known", and the brief would still be valid.

## Pre-send checks

Run these before the brief leaves your hands.

| Check | Passes when | If it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Size | 50 or more full-time staff at peak, contractors and seasonal agency staff excluded | Stop; the company does not qualify |
| Metadata only | Each line is a count, a range, a year, a system or a role | Rewrite the line in general terms |
| No customer or staff data | No names, card data, loyalty IDs, store manager names or receipt images | Delete and explain why to the sender |
| Platform facts | System names given, no claims about export features | Remove the claim; leave it to the administrator |
| Dates have a source | Each date names the plan or contract it came from | Replace with "none known" |
| Contact can decide | Field 6 names an executive, not a system administrator | Ask the inventory operations head again |

If the client has never thought of its records as an asset, pair this template with the [warm introduction brief for a business owner](/resources/a-warm-introduction-brief-for-a-business-owner), which frames the first conversation. The [client opportunity brief generator](/tools/client-opportunity-brief-generator) produces the same fields as a guided form, and the guide on [preserving store transfer history before consolidation](/guides/preserve-store-transfer-discrepancies-records) covers what to inventory when stores are closing.

## What happens after the brief is forwarded

The company decides whether to apply. If it does, SourceX reviews eligibility, rights and fit directly with the authorized contact, under its own agreement with the company. The partner does not see the records at any stage.

The introduced company needs 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. Still unknown at this point: buyer interest in transfer histories, how staff and customer data would be handled, whether franchise or landlord agreements restrict anything, and whether an offer follows. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions, and the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application. The [retail operations overview](/industries/retail-operations) and [wholesale distribution page](/industries/wholesale-distribution-data-monetization) describe neighboring record types.

## 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 six fields are filled, the open question is written and every check passes, [register as a partner](/register), confirm the retailer against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies), and read the [program terms](/terms) before the brief goes to the inventory operations head.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/commerce/pos-inbound-inventory-operation
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/commerce/pos-outbound-inventory-operation
- https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/netsuite/ns-online-help/section_N2312912.html