This template is part of the submittal revision review guide, which covers what to inventory before a document system changes. Here the job is narrower: turn what a construction document consultant already knows into a one-page note the company can forward internally without editing.
The fill-in brief for a submittal history
Copy the table and complete the right-hand column. Where nobody knows an answer, write "unknown". An honest gap is more useful to a reviewer than a confident guess.
| Field | What to write | Typical source of the answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Company and size | Trade or contractor type, full-time headcount at peak, where the records are held | Company website, the design coordination head |
| 2. Business task | One sentence on what the review cycle decides, for example matching product data to the approved design | Design coordination head |
| 3. Systems | Construction management platform, sheet repository, shared drives, consultant email | Platform administrator |
| 4. Coverage | Number of closed projects and the years they span, per system | A project list the company already keeps |
| 5. Volume | Rough item count per job and how many went round more than once | A log summary, not an export |
| 6. Linkage | Whether reviewer comments cite the sheet and detail they refer to | Design coordination head, a document controller |
| 7. Owners | Who administers each system; whether the design team or owner controls the sheet set | Platform administrator |
| 8. Open question and real dates | The unresolved question, plus any contract date that ends access to a system | The platform contract, as read by the company |
| 9. Authorized contact | Name and title of the executive who can approve a licensing discussion | Design coordination head |
Fields 5 and 6 carry the weight. A register that only says "approved as noted" is thin. A history where each round carries its number, the reviewer's objection and a pointer to the sheet that settled it is a chain of decisions. The system map explains how those links are made.
Filling the nine fields from one phone call
Every field can be answered from memory or from a report the team already runs. A short call is enough. Useful prompts:
- "How many people work here full time at the busiest point of the year, excluding subcontractors?"
- "Which platform runs the review cycle now, since when, and where do older jobs live?"
- "On a typical closed job, roughly how many items, and how many go round more than once?"
- "When a reviewer rejects a product, does the comment point to a sheet and revision?"
- "Were second rounds opened as new entries or edited in place?"
- "Is any platform contract ending, or a migration planned?"
- "Who would decide whether to discuss licensing this history?"
Two prompts deserve a follow-up. "Edited in place" answers usually mean thinner chains: Procore's own guidance favors opening a new revision over sending an item back a step, because the latter loses history. And a count read off a filtered log printout is a sizing figure for field 5, nothing more; Procore notes that log exports follow active filters and omit custom columns. The company confirms how its own jobs were run.
ProcoreCompleted brief: a 310-person general contractor (Illustrative)
The company, systems and figures below are fictional. They show the level of detail to aim for.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| 1. Company and size | Commercial general contractor, 310 full-time staff at peak, U.S. based, all records in English |
| 2. Business task | Reviewing and resubmitting product data until it matches the approved design |
| 3. Systems | Construction management platform since 2019; shared drive for earlier jobs; consultant comments partly in email |
| 4. Coverage | About 40 closed projects over nine years: 26 on the platform, 14 on the shared drive |
| 5. Volume | Roughly 300 items per job; about one in four needed a second round |
| 6. Linkage | On platform projects, most rejection comments cite a sheet number and revision; shared-drive projects rarely do |
| 7. Owners | Platform administered by the project controls manager; sheet sets controlled by each job's design firm |
| 8. Open question and real dates | When a substituted product conflicted with an already approved detail, does each later round cite the sheet issue that resolved it? Platform contract ends next year |
| 9. Authorized contact | Design coordination head as sponsor; CEO to approve a discussion |
Reading the example the way a reviewer will
A reviewer reads the completed brief for three things, and each is visible in the fields.
- Where the chain is strong. Field 6 says the 26 platform jobs usually tie comments to a sheet. That is the core of the history.
- Where it is weak. The 14 shared-drive jobs likely hold the stamped files but not the links. They still count, as a smaller separate class.
- What needs a rights answer first. Field 7 puts the sheet sets with outside design firms, whose authorship may limit reuse; who owns construction drawings is the company's reading for that.
Federal jobs add a wrinkle: under UFGS 01 33 00, items classed G or S go to the Government for approval while the rest stay with contractor quality control. If field 4 counts such jobs, flag them in field 8 for counsel. The note says they exist; it does not read the contract.
Red lines: what never goes in the brief
| Never include | Write instead |
|---|---|
| Stamped files, shop sheets or product data | The record class and roughly how many per job |
| Project names, owner names or site addresses | Sector and project count, for example "12 public school projects" |
| Platform logins or a sample export | The platform name and who administers it |
| Reviewer names | Their role, for example "design consultant" |
| A date that comes from a guess | "None known" until a contract date is confirmed |
Partners never ask for or handle raw client records. The brief describes what exists, how much, how long, in which system and who owns it. The revision histories checklist applies the same discipline to document histories generally, and the portfolio handoff checklist shows it for advisors covering several companies.
Qualification and what the brief cannot answer
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 introductions, and the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application.
The note cannot settle which jobs the company may license, how design firm and owner rights apply, whether buyers want this history now, or whether an offer follows. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout; those answers come from that review with the company's authorized contact. The decision tree on who can say yes helps fill field 9, and RFI logs and submittals and construction and field services list related project records.
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 all nine fields are filled and nothing on the red-line list remains, register as a partner, confirm the contractor on who qualifies and read the program terms before the design coordination head forwards the brief.