This template is part of the course version approval guide. It is written as an email because that is how most handoffs actually travel inside a training business: someone pastes it into a message, adds a line of their own and sends it upward. Keeping it in that shape means nobody has to rewrite it, and nothing gets added on the way.
The handoff, line by line
Each line has one job. Copy the labels and swap each bracket for an answer the sponsor can give from memory or a summary report, without opening anything.
Subject: Course approval history at [company] (for discussion)
Company: [business type], about [number] full-time staff at peak
Task: approving curriculum changes and publishing course releases with matching assessments
Records: [which of: change requests, reviewer notes and sign-offs, release history, question bank versions, content error tickets, master-section sync history]
Systems: [platform names, written as plain text]
Coverage: [years of releases]; [years for which reviewer notes are consistent]
Scale: about [number] active titles; about [number] releases a year
Access event: [documented date, or "none known"]
Open question: [the question nobody can answer yet]
Decision-maker: [executive], with [counsel]; [learning operations head] as sponsor
Not shared: no course files, learner data, client names, exports or logins
The last line matters as much as the others. It tells the executive that nothing has left the building, which is usually the first worry.
How to answer each line from a conversation, not a file
Records. Ask which of the six record types exist at all. A company that kept change requests but approved releases verbally has a different history from one with a formal review board. Both are worth writing down accurately.
Systems and coverage. Ask the platform administrator two things. First, are assessments pinned to specific question versions? If they are, the version history shows exactly what each release tested, which is worth a line under Records. Second, how long are logs kept? In Moodle that is set in the log store settings, and grade history can be kept for as little as 30 days or never deleted. Write both answers as facts, not as warnings.
Master and section copies. If the company pushes one master to many client sections, note it under Records, along with whether anyone tracks which sections received each change. That tracking is a record type of its own.
Exports. If the sponsor mentions an export, ask what it contains. Canvas's Content Exports API, for example, offers three export types: common_cartridge for course contents, qti for quizzes and zip for files. None of them is an approval history, so an export plan alone does not answer the Records line.
Access event. Only a date a document supports: a platform contract end, a read-only date in a migration plan. "None known" is fine.
Open question. Usually whether a known kind of exception, such as a revised title that referenced an obsolete assessment, can be traced from review to release to fix. The exception examples page shows what a traceable case looks like, and the records across systems map shows which keys make it traceable.
Filled in: a 480-person certification provider (Illustrative)
A fictional company, written for this page.
Subject: Course approval history before our platform move (Illustrative)
Company: professional certification provider, about 480 full-time staff at peak
Task: approving curriculum changes and publishing course releases with matching assessments
Records: change requests, reviewer notes and sign-offs, release history, question bank versions, content error tickets
Systems: current LMS (logs and old releases not moving), content repository, ticket tracker, the learning team's mailbox
Coverage: about seven years of releases; reviewer notes consistent for the last four
Scale: about 160 active courses; roughly 300 releases a year, from the platform's course list
Access event: old platform contract ends on the date in the migration plan
Open question: when a revised course referenced an obsolete assessment, can the gap be traced from the review to the release and the approved fix?
Decision-maker: COO with general counsel; learning operations head as sponsor
Not shared: no course files, learner data, client names, exports or logins
Read it as the COO would. In under a minute they know what exists, how far back it goes, what is about to be lost, who would own the decision and that nothing has been sent anywhere.
Five checks before it is forwarded
| Check | Passes when | If it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Headcount | 50 or more full-time staff at peak, contractors excluded | The company does not qualify; stop |
| Record content | Every line is a count, a year, a system name or a role | Remove the detail; describe it in general terms |
| Third-party content | Courses built on publisher or client material are flagged as such | Add a line; ownership is for the rights review |
| Decision-maker | A named executive who can approve a licensing discussion, not the platform administrator | Go back to the learning operations head |
| Access event | Any date comes from a contract or plan | Replace it with "none known" |
Ownership deserves the extra row in this sector. Courses may include licensed publisher material, contract designers' work or versions built for an enterprise client, and customer contracts may restrict how client-specific versions are used. Flag it; do not resolve it.
What the company and partner should expect next
The executive decides whether the company applies. If it does, SourceX reviews the record classes, rights and qualification; buyer interest, the rights result, any de-identification and any offer stay unknown until then. Board approval sometimes applies; see board approval for a data licensing agreement.
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. 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. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout.
For the sector view, see education and training and onboarding and training data. The client opportunity brief generator can format the handoff, and the warm introduction brief shows how to frame it for an owner-led company.
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 handoff passes all five checks and the learning operations head is ready to forward it, register as a partner, confirm the company on who qualifies and read the program terms.