This template is part of the candidate ownership conflicts guide. Use it once you understand how the firm's records join (the system map helps) and know who can say yes.
The blank brief
Copy the table into a document and complete the right-hand column. Use descriptions, ranges and roles, never record content.
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Firm size | Full-time internal employees at peak, contractors excluded; list placed workers separately, since they do not count toward the 50 |
| Structure | Single firm, or merged from which legacy units and when; legal integration status |
| Business task | The conflict in one line, such as deciding which unit owns a candidate submitted twice |
| Record types | Submissions, activity logs, consent emails, client portal times, double-submission notices, decision notes, credit policy |
| Systems | Each ATS by vendor category and years held; client vendor portals by category |
| Years of history | Earliest year per ATS; the year adjudication notes start |
| Volume | Rough count of duplicate notices or adjudicated conflicts a year, with whose estimate |
| Record owner | Who runs each ATS; who writes adjudication notes |
| Access event | Any dated change: system shutdown, record merge, supplier account closure |
| Open question | The one thing nobody could answer |
| Authorized contact | The executive who can approve a licensing discussion, plus the sponsor |
Keep or leave out: the test for each entry
Every entry should pass one test: could the commercial operations head forward it to a stranger without a confidentiality concern? The split below shows what passes.
| Keep in the brief | Leave out of the brief |
|---|---|
| The task: which unit owns a candidate submitted twice | Candidate names, resumes or contact details |
| Record types by name | Exports, screenshots or portal logins |
| Systems by category and years | Client names or agreement text |
| A count of duplicate notices, from a report | Details of any individual dispute |
| Who adjudicates and who approves | Personal contact data beyond a business email |
| One open question | Opinions on who should have won a past dispute |
| Figures the firm gave you, attributed | Any figure you estimated yourself |
The test matters because the record set is personal by nature. Where EU law applies, the GDPR treats any information about an identifiable person, including a name or an ID number, as personal data. Whether any candidate data can be used at all is therefore a legal question for the firm and SourceX's rights review, and a partner who sends a resume with a brief has answered it for them, wrongly.
Notes on the hardest fields
Structure. Write the merger date and whether the legal integration is complete. It tells SourceX which entity may apply and whether two sets of approvals are needed.
Systems. Give the vendor category and years for each ATS, and say whether old candidates were archived rather than deleted. Bullhorn, for instance, documents that its duplicate check does look at archived records but skips records a user is not allowed to see. A line such as "separate departments until the merger" tells SourceX why conflicts arose without naming anyone.
Record types. Say whether client portals send notices when the same person arrives from two desks. If they do, the client side keeps its own clock, independent of the firm's systems, and SourceX will want to know which clients and which years.
Volume. Count notices or notes from a report the firm runs, without opening them, and attribute the figure.
Open question. Pick the one that would most change SourceX's view, such as whether conflicts settled by phone before notes were kept can be dated.
A completed brief (Illustrative)
Fictional firm; not a real case or a completed deal. A 290-person recruiting firm formed two years ago when two regional firms merged, both serving the same large corporate clients through vendor portals.
| Field | Completed entry (Illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Firm size | 290 internal full-time at peak, contractors and placed workers excluded |
| Structure | Merged two years ago from two regional firms; one legal entity since last year |
| Business task | Deciding which legacy unit owns a candidate submitted twice to one requisition |
| Record types | Submissions, activity logs, filed consent emails, client double-submission notices, decision notes, written credit policy |
| Systems | Two ATS, six to seven years each; vendor portals at four large clients |
| Years of history | Unit A from 2019, unit B from 2020; adjudication notes from 2022 |
| Volume | About 140 portal duplicate notices a year, by the commercial operations head's report |
| Record owner | Commercial operations head writes notes; one administrator per ATS |
| Access event | Unit B system moves to read-only after the record merge next quarter, date confirmed by the firm |
| Open question | Whether conflicts settled by phone before 2022 can be dated from activities |
| Authorized contact | CEO; commercial operations head as sponsor; counsel advising |
Read it as SourceX would. The chain (two claims, a portal clock, a written rule and a note) exists from 2022, the access event is real and dated by the firm, and the open question is narrow. No candidate, client or dispute is identifiable.
What the brief cannot settle
Whether the records can be licensed depends on client terms, the privacy basis for candidate data and the merged entity's authority. What stays unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest in this record type, the result of the rights review, the de-identification needed and whether an offer follows. Licensing need not mean handing over ownership; see keeping ownership of data when licensing. For ownership of the candidate data itself, see who owns candidate data in a staffing firm's ATS.
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. 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. Send the brief under a short note modeled on the warm introduction brief; the software implementation partners page covers how ATS consultants refer. A related staffing case, a placement that fails inside the guarantee window, is covered in placement guarantee disputes.
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 commercial operations head has approved every field, register as a partner, check the firm against who qualifies and read the program terms before you send the brief.