# Warranty root-cause referral brief template | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/resources/warranty-root-cause-feedback-referral-brief-template
Last updated: 2026-10-19

A company introduction about warranty root-cause feedback needs eight metadata facts and one honest gap: company size, the business task, the record classes, the systems, years of history, rough volumes, the access event and who can authorize a discussion, plus the known weakness in the records. A field service integrator can gather all of it in one conversation with the aftermarket director, without opening a single claim, service report or lab finding.

This template is part of the [warranty root-cause feedback guide](/guides/workflow-warranty-root-cause-feedback), which covers what to inventory before a warranty platform renewal. Copy the blank brief below, fill it in, and compare your draft with the completed example.

## Three rules for a metadata-only brief

1. **Describe, never attach.** The brief says what exists, how much, how long, in which system and who owns it. No claim numbers, serial numbers, customer or dealer names, lab photos, part drawings or exports.
2. **Estimates are fine if labeled.** "About ten years of claims, older years to be confirmed" is more useful than a precise number nobody has checked. Mark every unconfirmed answer "estimated".
3. **Name the gap.** Every warranty history has one: missing installation dates, dealer reports kept outside the platform, lab findings in spreadsheets. Saying so up front saves a review cycle and builds trust with the person reading it.

A field service integrator often knows these systems better than anyone outside the company, because the integration work touched each one. That knowledge is exactly what makes a good brief, and exactly why the brief must stay at the level of description: system access granted for an integration project is not permission to describe the contents to a third party.

## The blank brief: eight fields and one gap

| Field | Prompt to fill in | Who usually answers |
|---|---|---|
| Company | Sector, country, full-time headcount at peak (contractors excluded) | Company website, aftermarket director |
| Business task | One sentence on how field failures become engineering fixes | Aftermarket director |
| Record classes | Which exist: warranty claims, field service reports, RMAs with lab findings, engineering responses, change orders | Aftermarket or quality lead |
| Systems | Plain-text names of the warranty platform, field service tool, returns lab database and PLM | Integrator or IT, confirmed by the director |
| Years of history | First year of claims in the current platform, and whether older years exist elsewhere | Platform administrator |
| Volumes | Claims and returns a year, as a range | Aftermarket director |
| Access event | Renewal, migration or archive date that changes where history lives, if any | Procurement or the platform contract |
| Authority | The executive who owns the records and the person who agreed to an introduction | Aftermarket director, then confirmed by that executive |
| Known gap | The one weakness a reviewer would find anyway | Your conversation |

If a row needs more than two lines, it holds detail that belongs in SourceX's review, not in the introduction. The [client opportunity brief generator](/tools/client-opportunity-brief-generator) formats the same fields into a one-page note.

## A completed brief for a fictional oven maker (Illustrative)

Invented for this page. The company, figures and dates are fictional, and the same manufacturer appears in the [worked control board case](/guides/warranty-root-cause-feedback-exception-examples).

| Field | Completed entry |
|---|---|
| Company | Maker of commercial combination ovens for restaurant chains, United States, 290 full-time employees |
| Business task | Turning field failures into engineering fixes and checking that each fix worked |
| Record classes | Warranty claims, field service reports, RMAs with lab findings, engineering responses and change orders |
| Systems | Warranty platform, field service tool, returns lab database, PLM |
| Years of history | About ten years of claims in the current platform; older years to be confirmed (estimated) |
| Volumes | Estimated 2,000 to 3,000 claims a year; a few hundred units returned to the lab |
| Access event | Warranty platform renewal next year; whether history moves is set by the contract, not yet read |
| Authority | COO owns the records; the CEO agreed to an introduction; aftermarket director is the sponsor |
| Known gap | Installation dates captured on only part of the claims, so time to failure is incomplete |

**Why this example works.** Each entry is a fact about the records, not a copy of one. The renewal is mentioned without inventing urgency: the brief says the contract has not been read yet. Authority is split honestly between the sponsor who knows the records and the executive who can say yes. And the gap is specific enough for a reviewer to test.

## Writing the known-gap line

Pick the weakness a reviewer would find in the first hour, and write it as a fact about coverage rather than a judgment about quality. In this sector the usual candidate is the missing install date, already covered in the [renewal inventory](/guides/workflow-warranty-root-cause-feedback). Three alternatives are worth checking with the aftermarket director:

- **Field reports written outside the company.** If independent dealers or installers write service reports, say so; their agreements may affect what the manufacturer can license. In U.S. vehicle safety reporting, a field report is defined as a written communication from a manufacturer's employee or representative about equipment that has left the manufacturer's direct control, which is a useful test for whose report it is.
- **Lab findings outside the lab database.** Older findings kept in spreadsheets or shared drives may not link to their claims.
- **Engineering responses without a back-reference.** Change orders that do not cite the claims that triggered them weaken the chain.

Write one gap, in one sentence, and stop. The [system map for warranty records](/guides/warranty-root-cause-feedback-records-across-systems) shows which joins a reviewer will test.

## What to check before you send it

**Regulated record sets.** Ask one yes-or-no question: does a federal recordkeeping or reporting rule already cover any of these records? Device makers answer to the FDA's quality system rule in 21 CFR Part 820, which governs complaint and servicing files; larger vehicle and equipment makers answer to the quarterly early warning rule in 49 CFR Part 579. If the answer is yes, add a line saying so and stop there. The rule tells the company what it must keep; it is not the partner's job to read it, and it does not settle licensing.

**Qualification.** The company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records 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.

**Your own paperwork.** Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions. Credit goes to the first valid introduction within the 90-day window, recorded when the company submits a verified application.

**What stays unknown.** Buyer interest in root-cause records, what dealer and supplier agreements allow, which identifiers must be removed, and whether any offer follows all 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. The [who can license warranty records answer](/questions/who-can-license-warranty-root-cause-feedback-records) helps confirm the authority row. Related record families are on the [warranty claims data](/data-types/warranty-claims-data), [root cause analysis records](/data-types/root-cause-analysis-records) and [human feedback and review](/data-types/human-feedback-and-review) pages, and other sectors are 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 brief is complete, the gap is named and the CEO has agreed to take the introduction, [register as a partner](/register), confirm the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before you send it.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-820
- https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-579/subpart-C
- https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ewr/Documents/EWRVehicleCompendium.pdf