Lead Sharing
Part of Partner lead sharing and routing
Resolving disputes about partner opportunity credit
Review partner opportunity credit disputes against the agreed rule, dated evidence and a recorded decision.
Resolve a partner credit dispute using the rule agreed for the opportunity and the evidence retained at the time. First identify what is disputed: an introduction, later help with a deal, a reporting label or a payment. These can involve the same customer but need different rules.
State the claim
Record the opportunity, the partners, the credit requested and the rule each side says applies. Separate a factual disagreement from a gap in the rule. A missing introduction date is an evidence problem; two meanings of 'sourced' are a definition problem.
Keep the customer’s immediate response route working while the partners review credit. The dispute should not cause duplicate outreach or delay a promised answer.
Reconstruct the sequence
Ask both sides for records made during ordinary work: the prospect’s request, the introduction, the receiving team’s acceptance, opportunity creation, specialist involvement and later changes. Keep original dates and source records. A later summary can explain them but should not silently replace them.
Apply the same questions to both claims:
- What action qualifies under the applicable agreement or reporting rule?
- Did it occur for this opportunity within any agreed period?
- Was the same need already active with the receiving team?
- When was the contribution recorded?
- Do exclusions, shared-credit or reversal terms apply?
A campaign logo or an account match alone does not prove an introduction. A late record may still describe a real contribution; examine its supporting evidence.
Key Events in a Partner Credit Dispute
- Prospect's initial request
- Date and source of first contact with the lead.
- Introduction made
- Date and method of introducing the prospect to the receiving team.
- Opportunity created
- Date when the opportunity was formally logged in the system.
- Specialist involvement
- Date and nature of any follow-up by a specialist team member.
- Dispute raised
- Date the credit claim was formally challenged.
Decide under the agreed rule
Keep one underlying opportunity record and record each partner’s evidenced involvement. If both qualify under different categories, describe those categories separately. Apply a shared or split credit method only if the applicable terms provide one; do not invent a percentage after the dispute begins.
If evidence is insufficient, record the claim as unresolved under the agreed process. If the facts are clear but no rule covers them, authorised decision-makers can settle the case and set a rule for future cases. Label any retrospective exception as such.
Advantages and Risks of Retrospective Rule Setting
- ProsProvides clarity for future disputes. Ensures consistency across similar cases. Can be authorised by leadership under ATO guidelines.
- ConsMay be seen as unfair if applied retroactively without transparency. Risk of inconsistency if not properly documented. Must comply with Australian Privacy Principles when using personal data.
Record and communicate the decision
A reviewer who did not make either claim can assemble the timeline. The authorised leads can then decide, with an escalation route for disputed contract interpretation or payment. Record the evidence considered, the decision, the date, unresolved facts and any appeal route.
Share only customer information needed for the review. Where the Australian Privacy Principles apply, a proposed disclosure of personal records still needs an applicable basis; a credit dispute does not automatically authorise a full export. Redact or summarise where that meets the review need.
Correct the reporting record or payment instruction through its owner. Then fix the process gap that caused the dispute. Credit allocates recognition or value under an agreed rule; it does not prove the partnership caused the purchase.
