# Warranty dispute referral brief template | SourceX

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

A company introduction about warranty eligibility disputes should fit on one page: headcount, the asset platform, field service and warranty systems by name, years of claims history, a rough count of appealed or overridden decisions, whether component swaps keep the old serial, any documented access event, who owns the records and the officer who agreed to an introduction. Write it at metadata level, without claim files, serial lists or exports.

This template belongs to the [warranty eligibility disputes guide](/guides/workflow-warranty-eligibility-disputes). The aftermarket operations head usually helps fill it in and forwards it to the person with authority.

## How the brief is meant to travel

The brief has two readers. The first is an executive at the client, who receives it from their own aftermarket head and decides whether to talk. The second is SourceX, which receives it with your introduction and decides whether the records are worth a review. Both readers need the same thing: enough to recognize the opportunity, nothing they would have to protect.

That shapes three habits:

- **Write what exists, not what it says.** "Appeals carry an approver and a reason field since 2019" describes a record. A claim number or a customer name copies one.
- **Use the client's words for systems.** Plain product names as text are fine; screenshots are not.
- **Mark guesses.** "Several hundred appeals (aftermarket head's estimate)" is honest and useful.

## Template: copy and complete

| Field | Prompt | Your entry |
|---|---|---|
| Company profile | Sector, countries, full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded) | Write here |
| Products serviced | Own brand, other manufacturers' brands, or both | Write here |
| Systems | Asset platform, field service tool, warranty system, where supplier recoveries live | Write here |
| Component history | Are components entered under the parent machine? Does a swap keep the old serial? | Write here |
| Years and volumes | Years of claims; claims a year; appealed or overridden decisions, as a range | Write here |
| Decision record | Are approver and reason stored as fields, or in email? | Write here |
| Access event | A documented cleanup, migration or contract end, with its date | Write here |
| Contracts to flag | Dealer or distributor agreements; supplier recovery terms; customer service agreements | Write here |
| Records owner | Title of the person who runs the dispute process | Write here |
| Authorized contact | Name and title of the officer who agreed to an introduction | Write here |
| Open question | One thing the records might show that nobody has checked | Write here |

The component history row deserves the most care. Asset platforms can model equipment as a hierarchy; Microsoft's Field Service, for example, uses a Parent Asset field and a Sub Assets grid. Warranty coverage then attaches to specific assets, as in Salesforce Field Service, where product warranty terms apply to an installed asset and an asset warranty records exclusions or extensions for one asset. Whether a replaced component kept its place in that structure decides whether a dispute can be rebuilt.

## The template filled in (Illustrative)

Fictional. Written the way a consultant might complete it after one call.

| Field | Completed entry |
|---|---|
| Company profile | Industrial equipment distributor, U.S. and Canada, 340 full-time employees |
| Products serviced | Air compressors and dryers from two manufacturers, plus its own service plans |
| Systems | An asset platform with component trees, a field service tool, a warranty system; supplier recoveries in accounts payable |
| Component history | Components entered under the parent since 2018; swaps before then edited in place |
| Years and volumes | About nine years of claims; roughly 4,000 claims a year; several hundred appealed or overridden decisions in total (aftermarket head's estimate) |
| Decision record | Approver and reason fields since 2019; earlier approvals in a shared mailbox |
| Access event | Asset register cleanup scheduled for next spring in the project plan |
| Contracts to flag | Dealer agreements with both manufacturers; supplier recovery terms; standard customer service agreement |
| Records owner | Head of aftermarket operations |
| Authorized contact | CEO, who agreed to a short call |
| Open question | When a serial changed after a component replacement, was the old serial kept and linked in every year? |

**Reading the example.** It tells the executive what the company has and why now (the cleanup), without a single record. It tells SourceX where the history is strong (component trees since 2018, decision fields since 2019) and weak (swaps edited in place before 2018), and it flags the two manufacturer agreements that counsel will read first. The [who-can-say-yes tree](/questions/who-can-license-warranty-eligibility-disputes-records) explains why the CFO, not the warranty administrator, is the authorized contact.

The [client opportunity brief generator](/tools/client-opportunity-brief-generator) can reformat these answers. Consultants who already run aftermarket projects will recognize the format from [management consulting referrals](/for/management-consultants); brokers who see warranty history in deal diligence can compare the [rep and warranty broker page](/for/rep-and-warranty-insurance-broker-referral).

## What stays unknown until SourceX reviews it

The brief starts a review; it does not answer the review's questions. Unknown until then: buyer interest in this record type, the effect of dealer, supplier and customer contracts on rights, which serials and customer details must be removed, preparation effort and any offer. If a cleanup is close, the [retention timeline](/guides/preserve-warranty-eligibility-disputes-records) shows which stage puts the old serials at risk.

Before sending, check qualification. 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. The [eligibility checker](/tools/data-licensing-eligibility-checker) gives a quick first pass. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting, and the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application. Any reward is funded separately by SourceX and never deducted from the company's payout.

## 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.

Once the brief is complete and the officer named in it has agreed to talk, [register as a partner](/register), confirm the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before you submit.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://refer.sourcex.si/rewards
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/field-service/assets
- https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.fs_record_product_warranties.htm&language=en_US&type=5