This decision tree is part of the candidate ownership conflicts guide. It answers one question for ATS implementation partners: in a recruiting firm that was formed by a merger, who can say yes to a conversation about its conflict history?
Why a merger changes who can say yes
In a single firm, authority over records is usually clear. After a merger it may not be. Until the legal integration is complete, two entities may each hold records that the other cannot license, and their client agreements may differ. The people you meet during an ATS project often belong to one legacy unit and speak for that unit's systems only.
Access settings make this practical, not theoretical. Bullhorn's documentation says its duplicate check ignores records a user cannot view, so each unit's recruiters may never have seen the other's candidates. The administrator of one instance can describe that instance well and the other not at all. The ICO's guidance for mergers adds a legal dimension: due diligence should establish the purpose behind the first collection of personal data and the lawful basis for sharing it. Candidate records collected by a legacy firm for its own placements carry that question into any later use.
The tree, branch by branch
Follow the branches in order. The graphic shows the same path from the system owners on the left to the signer on the right.
- You know an ATS administrator. Ask who decides ownership disputes between units. The administrator can describe fields, access settings and where notes are stored. They cannot authorize anything. Move to the person they name.
- You reach the commercial operations head. Confirm three things: where adjudication notes are kept, whether both legacy units applied the same internal rule, and whether they will sponsor an internal discussion. If they agree, they are your convener.
- Client agreements differ by legacy unit. Bring in the head of client services or account management. Client terms may limit what the firm can reuse from portal records, and that person knows which clients and which versions.
- Candidate personal data is in scope at all. Counsel and whoever owns privacy decide the basis. The partner does not. See who owns candidate data in a staffing firm's ATS.
- The legal integration is unfinished. Ask which entity holds each instance's records today. If two entities exist, both may need to approve. The answer on data in a shared group system covers this.
- The decision itself. The CEO of the merged firm authorizes and signs, with counsel advising and the CFO preparing the terms. Add any private equity sponsor with consent rights.
Who knows, who convenes, who decides
| Role | What they know | Can convene? | Can approve a licensing discussion? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATS administrator, unit A | Unit A fields, access rules, note storage | No | No |
| ATS administrator, unit B | Unit B fields, access rules, note storage | No | No |
| Commercial operations head | Adjudication practice, internal credit rules, client terms in use | Yes | No |
| Head of client services | Client agreement versions and portal access | Sometimes | No |
| Counsel | Privacy basis, client restrictions, entity status | No | Advises and can block |
| CFO | Financial terms and approvals | Sometimes | No; prepares the terms |
| CEO | Strategy and the merged firm's authority | Yes | Yes, and signs |
Side branches: what needs counsel, clients or the merged entity
Three branches change scope without ending the conversation.
Client portal records. The portal is the client's or its program office's system. The firm sees its own submissions under the client's terms. Whether the firm may reuse submission timestamps or duplicate notices is for counsel.
Candidate personal data. Where EU law applies, the GDPR defines personal data as any information about an identified or identifiable person, including by reference to a name or an identification number. Candidate records fit plainly. The interest in conflict history is in timestamps, rules and outcomes, which may allow heavy de-identification, but that is decided in the rights review.
Entity status. If the merger is still being integrated, write down which entity holds which records. It affects which entity's CEO signs and which entity applies, not whether the history is worth discussing.
A merged firm's path (Illustrative)
Fictional firm, invented for this page; not a real case. A 310-person recruiting firm formed from two regional firms eighteen months ago. Unit A's ATS holds records from 2016, unit B's from 2019. Legal integration finished last quarter.
| Branch | What the partner found | Next person |
|---|---|---|
| Starting contact | Unit B ATS administrator from the integration project | Commercial operations head |
| Convener | Commercial operations head agrees; notes kept on candidate records from 2021 | Head of client services |
| Client terms | Two clients have different ownership clauses per legacy unit | Counsel |
| Personal data | Candidate records in both instances | Counsel |
| Entity status | One entity since last quarter | CEO |
| Decision | CEO agrees to a first conversation, CFO to join on terms | Introduction made |
Five conversations, one introduction. The partner never opened a candidate record.
What stays unknown until SourceX reviews it
Rights to each record class and year, the client restrictions that apply, the de-identification needed, buyer interest in conflict histories and whether an offer follows. Licensing need not mean handing over ownership; see keeping ownership of data when licensing, and why data rights matter for the review order.
The introduced firm 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. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application, with one partner per company. If you also advise the firm in a paid role, disclose the referral relationship; the fractional CFO conflict-of-interest answer sets out how. The worked conflict case shows the records the convener will describe, and the referral brief template puts it on one page.
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 commercial operations head has agreed to convene and the merged firm's CEO is named, register as a partner, confirm the firm on who qualifies and read the program terms before you make the introduction.