This template is part of the rate parity exception review guide, which covers the inventory a hotel group should take before a channel contract renewal. Use the blank form during one call with the revenue operations head, then compare your draft with the completed Illustrative brief further down.
How to use this template
Fill every field with a short phrase, a rough number, a year span or the word "unknown". Unknown is a useful answer: it tells SourceX where the rights review and the company's own checks need to start, and it stops anyone from guessing.
Three rules keep the brief safe to forward:
- Counts, not content. "About 40 reviewed gaps a month" is fine. A list of which channels undercut which rate is not.
- Roles, not names, until the company agrees. Write "group CFO" rather than a person's name in the first draft.
- Dates from documents. An access date belongs in the brief only if it comes from a contract or project plan.
The blank brief
Copy this form. The right-hand column lists what each field must never contain.
| Field | What to write | Never include |
|---|---|---|
| A. Company | Type of operator, number of hotels, markets, full-time staff at peak | Owner names or hotel financials |
| B. Review task | One line on how flagged rate gaps were reviewed and closed | Specific channels' pricing behavior |
| C. Tools | Price-monitoring service, channel manager, booking engine, Google Hotel Center, where review notes are kept | Logins, screenshots or exports |
| D. Years covered | Years of captured prices, product code history, rate plan versions and correction logs, each separately | A single guessed figure for "all data" |
| E. Volume | Rough flagged gaps per month and how many went to review | Individual cases |
| F. Record owner | Role that maintains the files day to day | Personal opinions on rights |
| G. Decision-maker | Role that signs agreements about company data, plus counsel | Promises about value or acceptance |
| H. Ownership structure | Owner-operated, managed for owners, franchised, or mixed | Copies of management or franchise agreements |
| I. Open question | The one thing nobody can confirm yet | Speculation presented as fact |
| J. Access event | Contract renewal or system replacement, with its documented date | An invented deadline |
Field H matters more than it looks. Whether hotels are managed for owners changes who must consent, as the who-can-say-yes tree shows.
Field notes for a hotel group
Tools (C). List each application on its own line. A group that switched price-monitoring vendors once already holds two histories with a gap between them, and the brief should say so. Google's Hotel Center price accuracy report lists mismatches with a reason for each; if the revenue team annotated those reports, add "Hotel Center reports" to the list.
Years covered (D). Four spans, because they rarely agree. Captured prices often cover only a limited window; old rate plan versions may never have been saved; a correction log in a spreadsheet can reach back further than any application.
Review task (B). Name the rulebook. The rules for reviews in the EEA changed in July 2024, when, according to the European Commission's DMA factsheet, Booking.com dropped parity requirements from its terms there. A group with properties in the EEA has files judged under two regimes, and one clause in the brief can flag it.
Open question (I). Usually it is whether each flagged gap can still be tied to the exact room and package being compared on that date, which depends on how product codes and plan inclusions were kept. The worked exception examples show why that link decides how readable a case is.
A completed brief (Illustrative)
Written for this page about a fictional hotel group. Every value is invented; this is not a real company, forecast or deal.
| Field | Illustrative entry |
|---|---|
| A. Company | Hotel management and ownership group, 14 hotels in the U.S. and Canada, 310 full-time staff at peak |
| B. Review task | Reviewing flagged rate differences between direct and third-party channels and deciding whether each was a breach, a setup error or a different product |
| C. Tools | Price-monitoring service; channel manager due for replacement; booking engine; Hotel Center; review notes in a shared revenue sheet |
| D. Years covered | About four years of captured prices; product code history unknown; rate plan versions not kept; correction log since 2021 |
| E. Volume | Roughly 60 flagged gaps a month, about 25 reviewed by the revenue team |
| F. Record owner | Revenue operations head, with the distribution manager for channel setup |
| G. Decision-maker | Group CFO, with counsel reading channel agreements |
| H. Ownership structure | Mixed: 9 owned hotels, 5 managed for third-party owners |
| I. Open question | Whether the outgoing channel manager can export past room and rate code links, or only today's |
| J. Access event | Channel manager replacement scheduled in the project plan; date to be confirmed by the company |
Read it as the CFO will: what exists, how far back it goes, who keeps it, which hotels need owner input and what is uncertain. Nothing in it is a record. The client opportunity brief generator can turn these fields into a short covering email.
Checking the brief before it is sent
Run down this list with the revenue operations head:
- Every field holds a phrase, a number, a role or "unknown".
- No channel names are paired with prices or behavior.
- Field D gives four separate spans, not one.
- Field H says which hotels are managed or franchised.
- Field J cites a document, or says no date is known.
- The decision-maker is a role that signs agreements, not the person with the most system access.
If the group is still working out which processes it documents well, assessing hospitality operating procedures gives a wider view, and exception handling data for AI agents explains why reviewed cases matter more than raw snapshots.
The introduced 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. 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. Unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest, the rights review result, which records are selected and any offer. More operators are listed on the hospitality 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 every field is filled and the checklist holds, register as a partner, confirm the group on who qualifies and read the program terms before the brief goes to the CFO.