This template is part of the scope creep adjudication guide. Fill the blank version during a single call with the delivery director, then compare your draft with the completed Illustrative brief further down.
The blank brief (copy this)
Each line takes a phrase, a number, a range or the word "unknown".
| Line | What to write |
|---|---|
| A. Firm | [Service lines; engagement model: fixed fee, capped, time and materials; full-time staff at peak] |
| B. Decision being described | Ruling on client requests that fall outside a signed SOW: absorb, bill through a change order, or decline |
| C. Systems | [PSA for tasks, time and change requests; contract tool or library for SOWs; email or tickets for client requests] |
| D. Years held | [First year each system holds usable history] |
| E. Volume | [Change requests a year, approved and rejected; active engagements a year] |
| F. Record keeper | [Role that maintains the change request log] |
| G. Signer | [CEO; who reviews client terms] |
| H. Dated event | [PSA migration, read-only date, license end, with its source] |
| I. Open question | [The one link nobody has confirmed] |
| J. Withheld | No SOWs, change request text, client names, rates or exports |
Line J is fixed. It tells the reader at once that nothing confidential has left the firm.
How to fill each line without seeing a SOW
A. Firm. The engagement model matters more than the service line. Fixed-fee and capped work forces an explicit ruling when a request falls outside scope; pure time and materials may only show drift as hours climbing toward a not-to-exceed limit. Microsoft's Project Operations documentation draws the same distinction: not-to-exceed limits cap actual revenue on time and material lines, while fixed-price lines hold a value regardless of cost.
C. Systems. Name system types, not screenshots. Microsoft's project-to-profit guidance lists processing change requests as a step separate from maintaining contracts, and many firms store them that way too, so expect at least two systems plus email.
E. Volume. The director can estimate from memory or from a count the PSA already shows on a dashboard. Ask for rejected requests separately; a refusal with its reason recorded is half of what adjudication means.
G. Signer. The CEO can authorize a licensing discussion and sign for the firm. Use the sign-off tree to decide whether counsel should be named next to them.
H. Dated event. Only a date with a source: the migration plan, the PSA contract end, a vendor notice. With none on file, write "none known". A brief without a deadline is still a good brief.
I. Open question. Usually a join. Were older change requests approved by email, so their link to a PSA task depends on a project name in a subject line? Does every approved change point to the SOW version it amended? The exception examples page shows what a fully traceable case looks like.
A completed brief for a fictional consulting firm (Illustrative)
Every value below is invented for this page.
| Line | Illustrative entry |
|---|---|
| A. Firm | IT consulting and implementation, mostly fixed-fee and capped engagements, 190 full-time staff at peak |
| B. Decision being described | Ruling on client requests that fall outside a signed SOW: absorb, bill through a change order, or decline |
| C. Systems | Legacy PSA (tasks, time, change requests); contract tool (SOW versions); email for client requests |
| D. Years held | About seven years in the PSA, from 2019; SOW versions from 2016 |
| E. Volume | 150 to 200 change requests a year, roughly a third rejected; about 120 active engagements |
| F. Record keeper | Delivery director, with the PMO lead for time detail |
| G. Signer | CEO; contracts lead reviews client terms |
| H. Dated event | Legacy PSA becomes read-only four months after the new PSA goes live, per the migration plan |
| I. Open question | Change requests before 2022 were approved by email; the link to PSA tasks rests on project names in subject lines |
| J. Withheld | No SOWs, change request text, client names, rates or exports |
Read it as the CEO would: what exists, how far back, who keeps it, what is uncertain and when part of it gets harder to reach. None of it is a record.
Mistakes that make a CEO stop reading
- Attaching anything. A sample SOW "to show quality" breaks line J and the firm's client terms in one move.
- Selling the outcome. No figures for what the firm might be offered; that is unknown until review, and SourceX does not quote before it.
- Inventing urgency. If there is no read-only date, say so. Real urgency is a documented migration, not a deadline the partner picked.
- Hiding the gaps. An honest open question in line I reads as competence. A brief claiming every change joins cleanly invites doubt.
- Naming the administrator as signer. System access is not authority to license firm records.
The warm introduction brief for a business owner covers tone for owner-led firms, and the client opportunity brief generator can turn the completed lines into a short email.
After the brief is forwarded
If the CEO agrees to a call, the firm applies and SourceX reviews the record classes, rights and qualification. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout. Which client agreements limit reuse, what must be de-identified, whether the records match current demand and whether any offer follows all stay open until then.
The firm needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a 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. For where this trail sits among a firm's other records, see assessing operational knowledge in a professional services firm; a fractional CFO for professional services firms has often seen the write-off side. Other sectors are on the industries hub.
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 lines A to I are filled and line J holds, register as a partner, check the firm against who qualifies and read the program terms before the delivery director forwards the brief.