mbfinotti/partnerships-skillsチェック済み
SKILL DETAIL
partner-channel-conflict
mbfinotti/partnerships-skills/partner-channel-conflict
Write the channel conflict rules that govern contested deals between direct sales and channel partners or between partners - rules of engagement, account segmentation, named-account carve-outs, deal registration as a claim instrument (protection window, tie-break, rejection grounds), compensation neutrality for direct reps, escalation and adjudication ladders, and governance cadence. Also covers consumer brands (D2C vs retail conflict, MAP policy, channel-exclusive assortment). Use whenever the user mentions channel conflict, partner disputes, deal poaching, or two routes to market claiming the same account, even if they never say conflict. Do NOT use for designing the co-sell operating model - use mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@co-selling-strategy instead.
インストール · 496出典を見る
Installation
npx skills add https://github.com/mbfinotti/partnerships-skills --skill partner-channel-conflict
スキルファイル
SKILL.md
最終同期 · 2026/10/23
evals/evals.json›
{
"skill_name": "partner-channel-conflict",
"evals": [
{
"id": 1,
"prompt": "We're Ferrolane Systems, network observability software, about 40 resellers across North America. Our deal registration policy today is 30 days of protection from approval plus a flat 10-point margin bump on anything registered. Two problems. One reseller registered 62 accounts last quarter and only actually worked 4 of them, so everybody else is locked out of those logos. And our AEs insist 30 days is plenty while partners keep asking for more. For reference our average sales cycle came in at 148 days last year. Rewrite the registration policy for me.",
"expected_output": "A rewritten registration policy with a protection window derived from the 148-day cycle, a size-differentiated uplift replacing the flat bump, expiry plus activity-gated extension as the anti-squatting mechanism, an explicit expiry/re-open rule, a separate approval SLA, and codified rejection grounds feeding a rejection-reason metric.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States the current 30-day protection window is too short against a 148-day average sales cycle",
"Sizes the protection window at a minimum of roughly 111 days, or explicitly derives the floor as ~75% of the 148-day average cycle",
"Presents 30-180 days as the observed field range with 90 days most common, rather than presenting 90 days as a universal standard to adopt here",
"Replaces the flat 10-point uplift with an uplift differentiated by deal size or complexity",
"States that a flat uniform uplift fails to surface exactly the large strategic deals the vendor most needs visibility into",
"Prescribes a default expiry combined with an activity-based extension test as the fix for the 62-registration hoarding pattern",
"Specifies the expiry mechanics concretely, including reminders ahead of expiry and a renewal or extension path gated on demonstrated activity",
"Rules explicitly that an expired registration re-opens the deal",
"States that a resubmission after expiry does not outrank a rival claim filed during the gap",
"Sets a registration approval SLA of 24-48 hours, stated separately from the protection window",
"Argues that predictability of the approval process matters more to partners than raw speed, for example an acknowledged in-review status while the check runs",
"Lists codified rejection grounds including duplicate registration, account already in active direct pipeline or an existing customer, and no verifiable partner relationship with the account",
"Requires every rejection to carry a recorded reason and names the rejection-reason mix as a governance metric"
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"prompt": "Vantiqo, B2B workflow automation, roughly $40M ARR, sell through about 25 resellers. Our CRO insists our comp is already partner-neutral: an AE earns their normal 8% on a partner deal, we just calculate it on the net price the reseller pays us after their 22% discount rather than on what the customer pays. Despite that, AEs still race partners to accounts and we lost two resellers this year over it. I've been told to write rules of engagement. I'm also considering just paying AEs full commission on channel deals as if they were direct, to end the argument. Where do I start?",
"expected_output": "A diagnosis that the 8%-on-reseller-price arrangement is not neutrality, a fix that bases neutrality on customer price and lands in both the comp plan and the partner agreement, the three comp variants ranked with quota retirement recommended over the user's full-commission instinct, and honest treatment of the evidence.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Identifies paying the rep on the discounted price the reseller pays, rather than the price the customer pays, as the specific defect in the current plan",
"States that under this arrangement the rep earns less on every partner deal despite nominal neutrality, and that this predicts persistent vertical conflict",
"Defines compensation neutrality as the direct rep being paid or having quota retired at the same rate whether or not a partner is involved",
"States that a rules-of-engagement document cannot survive a comp plan that pays reps to break it, and addresses the comp defect rather than delivering the document alone",
"Requires the neutrality decision to be written into both the partner agreement and the direct comp plan, not only one of them",
"Presents the comp variants ranked by efficiency with quota retirement above a channel metric in the plan, and a channel metric above full commission on channel deals",
"Recommends dollar-for-dollar quota retirement as the default starting variant rather than the full-commission option the user proposed",
"Notes that a quota-retirement haircut, such as $0.50 on the dollar, costs less but reintroduces a mild bias against partner deals",
"Does not endorse full commission without attaching a stated review date for stepping down to a lower variant",
"States that a comp lever is easy to add and politically expensive to withdraw, naming reversibility as the real cost of the full-commission option",
"Acknowledges the genuine dissent on comp neutrality, that paying full freight on revenue the channel would have delivered anyway is a real cost objection, rather than presenting neutrality as unanimous",
"Flags any circulated magnitude figures such as doubled sales, 181% bigger deals or 40% higher win rates as single-sourced and vendor-interested, or omits them entirely",
"Separates the direction of the effect, presented as practitioner consensus, from the magnitude figures, which are not presented as evidence"
]
},
{
"id": 3,
"prompt": "Halberd Analytics. One product, US only, 60 partners split between resellers and SIs. Our CEO wants a named-account list covering our top 400 accounts, marked direct-only, so there's zero ambiguity about who owns what. Our partner ops function is one person who has maybe 4 hours a quarter spare for program admin. What segmentation should we actually put in the rules of engagement?",
"expected_output": "A segmentation recommendation that refuses the 400-account list on effort grounds, deletes the axes the company's shape rules out rather than deferring them, and lands on a deal-size threshold plus one motion carve-out with the trade-offs named.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States the ranking of segmentation axes explicitly rather than presenting an unordered menu",
"Ranks the axes on conflict prevented per unit of ongoing effort rather than on precision of coverage",
"Recommends against the 400-account named list given there is no owner with capacity to maintain it",
"Deletes the named-account axis from the menu and states in the deliverable that the program has no named-account axis, rather than parking it as a later phase",
"Explains that an axis parked for later returns as a list nobody maintains, and that a stale named list becomes a conflict source of its own",
"Deletes product line as an axis on the grounds that the portfolio is single-product",
"Deletes geography as an axis on the grounds that the footprint is a single region",
"Recommends a deal-size threshold plus one motion carve-out as the default pair of axes",
"Names boundary gaming and fights over expansions as the trade-off carried by a deal-size threshold",
"Requires explicit renewal and expansion rules alongside the motion carve-out, or states that without them the carve-out only moves the conflict",
"States that named accounts rank highest on value and highest on effort yet last on efficiency, which is why a ratio demotes it every round",
"Presents two or three candidate axes with trade-offs and a recommendation rather than asserting a single answer"
]
},
{
"id": 4,
"prompt": "Corveline, B2B security software, about 130 partners. Today every direct-versus-partner dispute goes to our VP of Sales and he decides. He's ruled for the direct rep in 11 of the last 12. Escalations are down 70% year over year and our exec team is reading that as the problem solving itself. I want a proper escalation ladder written up. Keep it simple: 48-hour decision at every tier.",
"expected_output": "A tiered ladder that reads the escalation drop as partner disengagement, moves adjudication out of the sales line, differentiates the SLA by tier instead of applying 48 hours everywhere, sets an evidence standard, and defines remediation for whichever side loses.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Reads the 70% drop in escalations as partner disengagement rather than as conflict declining",
"Connects that drop to partners ceasing to register and to escalate once they believe direct always wins",
"Removes the VP of Sales from the adjudicator seat and states that the adjudicator must not be the direct sales leader",
"Names a specific neutral seat, Head of Channel Ops, with the deal desk as the alternative where channel ops does not exist",
"Rejects the user's request for a blanket 48-hour decision at every tier",
"Applies the 48-hour decision figure to the working-level and neutral-adjudicator tiers",
"Applies up to 5 business days at the executive tier for precedent-setting disputes and appeals",
"Keeps the registration approval SLA separate from the adjudication SLA and identifies them as different clocks",
"Includes an automated tier that resolves duplicate registrations or CRM overlap at submission in real time",
"Writes an evidence standard of registration timestamp, first-engagement timeline and activity logs from both sides, and states that seniority never decides",
"Requires hearing both sides separately before deciding rather than convening a joint session first",
"Allows exactly one appeal, to the tier above, admitted on new evidence only",
"Defines remediation for the losing side of every adjudication, such as influence credit, priority on the next comparable opportunity or a documented margin accommodation for a partner",
"Requires every decision to be logged with the evidence relied on so it functions as precedent for later cases"
]
},
{
"id": 5,
"prompt": "Nyxora. We had three genuine blow-ups this month. In one of them our AE and a partner's rep walked into the same procurement meeting without knowing about each other. Our AEs typically find out a partner was engaged only when the deal reaches booking. Registrations get submitted in our partner portal; our AEs live in the CRM and never open the portal. Leadership wants a rules-of-engagement doc posted on the intranet by Friday. Write it.",
"expected_output": "A response that classifies the disputes, recognises them as manifest conflict requiring adjudication and visible remediation before new rules land, treats the portal/CRM split as a systems defect, and refuses to publish the rules only on an internal intranet.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Classifies the reported disputes using the vertical, horizontal and multichannel conflict typology",
"Locates the disputes at the manifest stage of the latent, perceived, felt, manifest progression",
"States that manifest conflict requires an adjudicated case and visible remediation before any new rule will be believed, and does not hand over rules alone",
"Diagnoses the portal-versus-CRM split as information asymmetry and a systems defect rather than a behaviour problem on either side",
"Requires registrations to write to the CRM system of record at submission rather than at booking",
"Specifies an automatic check of the submitted account or domain against active direct pipeline and existing customers at submission",
"States that overlap must be visible at opportunity creation",
"Rejects publishing the rules only on the internal intranet and requires publication where partners actually read them, such as the partner portal",
"Names an executive sponsor inside the document itself and treats that sponsorship line as part of the artifact rather than a nicety",
"States that an unenforced rule destroys partner trust faster than no rule at all",
"Produces a rules-of-engagement artifact covering segmentation, account lists, registration, compensation, escalation, exceptions and governance",
"Keeps the account lists and conflict rules in an exhibit or program-guide annex rather than inside the signed partner agreement, so they update without re-papering every partner"
]
},
{
"id": 6,
"prompt": "Brackwell Goods, we make cookware. Our DTC site is about 20% of revenue, we're stocked in roughly 900 independent kitchen retailers, and we sell 3P on Amazon. Retailers are furious that our own site takes the sale. Here's the plan we drafted: publish a MAP policy, have every retailer sign it, negotiate the exact levels with our top 20 accounts first so they buy in, quietly grant a couple of long-standing accounts an exception, and file complaints with Amazon so they take down violators. We'll hold MSRP identical across every channel. Sanity check this before we send it.",
"expected_output": "A rejection of the signature, negotiation and private-exception elements as converting a unilateral policy into a bilateral agreement, a correction that Amazon will not enforce brand policy, and a redirect from price parity to assortment differentiation inside a route-to-market map, with counsel flagged.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"States that a MAP policy must be strictly unilateral, announced, distributed and monitored, and never negotiated",
"Rejects collecting retailer signatures on the MAP policy",
"Rejects negotiating MAP levels with the top 20 accounts or otherwise soliciting retailer input",
"Rejects granting private exceptions to individual accounts",
"Explains that negotiation, signature, solicited input or private exceptions risk converting the unilateral policy into a bilateral agreement exposed under Sherman Act section 1",
"References the Colgate doctrine as the basis on which a unilateral US MAP policy rests",
"States that Amazon will not enforce MAP or reseller policies on the brand's behalf, so enforcement must be planned around that fact rather than against it",
"States that holding MSRP identical across channels does not resolve the D2C-versus-retail conflict",
"Identifies the real object of the conflict as attention, traffic and trust rather than price",
"Names channel-exclusive assortment or SKU differentiation, such as retailer-specific SKUs, colourways, configurations, staggered releases or assortment depth, as the structural lever",
"Names the route-to-market map as the governing artifact for this consumer case, in place of a B2B rules-of-engagement document with deal registration",
"Specifies at least four of the fields each documented route must carry: owner, customer segment, SKU assortment, pricing authority, fulfillment responsibility, return policy, approved geography",
"Routes unauthorised and grey-market sellers to trademark's material-difference doctrine, where missing warranty or quality controls defeat first-sale protection, rather than to MAP enforcement alone",
"Flags the pricing-policy content for counsel review before publication and declines to present the response as legal advice"
]
},
{
"id": 7,
"prompt": "I'm on the exec team at Calderwell Athletic, footwear and apparel, about $1.4B revenue. The board wants DTC to go from 18% of sales today to 55% inside two years. The plan is to exit roughly 55% of our wholesale accounts, everything we consider undifferentiated, and put the marketing spend behind our own app and stores. My job is to write the channel plan and manage the fallout with the retailers we keep. What do I need to think about?",
"expected_output": "A response anchored on the documented DTC over-rotation precedent with its dates and figures, framing the wholesale exit as a multi-year strategy decision rather than a conflict tactic, and steering the retained retailers toward assortment differentiation inside a documented route-to-market map.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Frames the wholesale exit as a strategy decision with multi-year inventory and P&L consequences rather than a conflict-resolution tactic",
"Cites Nike's 2017 Consumer Direct Offense, narrowing to roughly 40 strategic retail partners, as the canonical precedent for this plan",
"States that Nike had exited roughly 50% of its retail partners by September 2021",
"States that Nike's DTC share rose from 16% of brand sales in 2011 to roughly 42% by FY2023 and never reached its 60% goal",
"Notes the FY2023 net income decline of 16% and the inability to clear inventory without wholesale shelf space",
"Notes the reversal, including re-entry to DSW and Macy's in October 2023, rebuilding Foot Locker, and returning to Amazon in 2025",
"Notes that Adidas ran a parallel reversal, or otherwise establishes that the pattern is not unique to a single brand",
"States that the partners you cut do not come back on the old terms",
"Warns explicitly against locking the 55% DTC share as a fixed two-year target, or requires a stated off-ramp condition for reversing the plan",
"Requires a route-to-market map documenting each remaining route rather than an undocumented plan",
"Recommends assortment differentiation for the retained retailers rather than price parity as the way to manage their exposure"
]
},
{
"id": 8,
"prompt": "Sable Ridge, B2B data infrastructure. Our channel team is two people. We're rewriting our partner rules: the registration protection window drops from 120 days to 60, and the registered-deal margin uplift drops from 12 points to 7. The plan is a one-day brainstorming offsite with our sales leaders to draft it, then stand up a Partner Advisory Council so partners feel heard, then publish. What should the agenda and the ongoing governance look like?",
"expected_output": "A replacement of generic brainstorming with the channel alignment workshop format including separate pre-interviews, an explicit call on the advisory council given the margin cut versus the two-person team, a ranked forum set defaulting to the QBR item, and a metric set starting on the rejection-reason mix.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Replaces the generic brainstorming offsite with a channel alignment workshop, the profession's own format for drafting or rewriting these rules",
"Specifies stakeholder pre-interviews as the load-bearing pre-study step of that workshop",
"Requires the pre-interviews to be run separately with direct sales leaders, partner managers and a sample of partners, so each group speaks freely",
"Specifies the rest of the workshop shape: a facilitated interactive session, post-analysis, and a summary artifact carrying an action list",
"Surfaces that this rewrite cuts money partners already earn, through both the shorter window and the reduced uplift, and identifies that as the condition that promotes a Partner Advisory Council despite its standing cost",
"Makes an explicit call on whether the council runs, given the two-person channel team, rather than listing it as a future forum",
"States that a council listed as a future forum reads as consultation partners never actually get, and that a council hearing only announcements is theatre",
"Ranks the governance forums explicitly, with the QBR standing agenda item highest on efficiency and the Partner Advisory Council highest on effort and lowest on efficiency",
"Starts the metric set on the registration rejection-reason mix",
"Interprets a rising duplicate or already-in-direct-pipeline share as detection working late, and a rising no-verifiable-relationship share as land-grabbing",
"Flags partner satisfaction survey scores as lagging and names behavioural leading indicators such as portal login frequency, partner-manager meeting attendance, collateral downloads or certifications completed",
"Aligns the rules review cadence to the comp-plan cycle so comp and rules change together",
"Writes off-cycle rewrite triggers into the document itself, such as a new route to market, M&A, a new partner type, a segmentation change, a legal change in a covered geography, or a dispute cluster on one axis"
]
},
{
"id": 9,
"prompt": "We're a UK-headquartered B2B hardware vendor with distributors in France, Germany and Spain, plus one self-employed commercial agent in France we've used for six years. Three things I want in the new rules of engagement. One: we terminate the French agent on 30 days' notice and hand his accounts to our German distributor. Two: our German distributor gets exclusive Germany, nobody else sells there, including inbound orders from German customers who find us online. Three: we circulate our forward price list each quarter to all three distributors so nobody undercuts anyone, while we keep selling direct to enterprise accounts ourselves. Draft the clauses.",
"expected_output": "A refusal to draft these as purely commercial clauses, with each of the three items mapped to its specific EU constraint - agent indemnity, the active/passive sales distinction, and the narrowed dual-distribution information-exchange safe harbour - flagged for counsel and not presented as legal advice.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Declines to draft these as purely commercial clauses and flags each item for counsel review before publication",
"States explicitly that the response is not legal advice",
"Identifies the Commercial Agents Directive, 86/653/EEC, as applying to the self-employed French agent",
"States the agent is entitled to a mandatory termination indemnity or compensation that cannot be contracted out",
"Notes that a non-EU choice-of-law clause will not defeat that entitlement, citing Ingmar",
"Distinguishes active selling from passive selling",
"States that active selling into an exclusively allocated territory can be restricted but passive sales generally cannot, so the blanket clause covering inbound orders from German customers fails",
"References VBER, Regulation (EU) 2022/720, and its market-share safe harbour at 30%",
"Notes that exclusivity may be shared across up to five distributors under that regulation",
"Identifies the arrangement as dual distribution, the supplier selling direct in competition with its own distributors",
"States that the information-exchange safe harbour for dual distribution is narrowed, so circulating forward prices to distributors you compete with is constrained",
"Warns that a US-style minimum advertised price approach is treated as indirect resale price maintenance and is a hardcore restriction in the EU, so it must not be pushed into EU or UK channels",
"Notes that the geography and territory segmentation axis carries the only material compliance exposure among the segmentation axes"
]
},
{
"id": 10,
"prompt": "I just took over as head of channel at Ostrahl, third person in this seat in four years. I have 20 minutes with our CRO next week to get comp neutrality approved. Give me the one-pager: the hard numbers on what channel conflict is costing us and what neutral comp returns, plus how I make sure the rules I write don't get torn up by whoever replaces me.",
"expected_output": "A one-pager that refuses to present the circulating vendor figures as hard numbers, labels each claim by provenance, substitutes an internally measurable basis for the ask, and anchors the rules to a named sponsor and amendment procedure rather than to the current post-holder.",
"files": [],
"expectations": [
"Attaches a provenance flag to every quoted benchmark rather than presenting figures as established measurement",
"Labels primary, trade and vendor claims apart from one another",
"Identifies the circulating magnitude figures, such as doubled sales after channel-neutral comp, deals 181% bigger, or win rates 40% higher, as tracing to a single self-interested practitioner source and illustrative at best",
"Identifies the claim that unresolved conflict cuts partner-sourced pipeline by 30-40% as vendor-glossary material",
"Separates the direction of the comp-neutrality effect, stated with confidence as practitioner consensus, from the magnitudes, stated only with flags",
"States that there is no rigorous public evidence that deal registration reduces total conflict",
"Describes any channel conflict rate metric as a management proxy rather than an independently validated benchmark",
"Declines to hand the CRO unflagged hard ROI numbers and offers an internally measurable basis instead, such as registered versus non-registered win rate and deal size",
"Anchors the rules to a named executive sponsor and a written amendment procedure rather than to the current channel chief personally",
"Cites average channel-chief tenure of 4.2 years, and 2-3 years outside the largest companies, from Jay McBain's analysis of 337 channel chiefs",
"Names rules being rewritten at every channel-leader turnover as the specific failure mode being defended against",
"Requires the comp-neutrality decision to land in both the partner agreement and the direct comp plan for it to survive a leadership change"
]
}
],
"trigger_queries": [
{ "query": "Write rules of engagement for direct sales versus our resellers.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our AEs and our partners keep landing on the same accounts. How do we stop it?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Draft a deal registration policy with a tie-break for when two partners claim the same deal.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We need a channel conflict policy.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Two of our resellers are fighting over the same logo and both say they found it first.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How long should our deal registration protection window be?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our direct team keeps overriding approved partner registrations. What do I do?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Who should decide partner disputes if not the VP of Sales?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Set up an escalation ladder for contested deals.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our DTC store is eating our retailers' lunch. Help.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Do we pay our reps the same on partner deals as on direct deals?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write a named account list policy covering which accounts stay direct only.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Partners say we steal their deals. I need something in writing.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What goes into a rules of engagement document for a channel program?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our partner portal and our CRM don't talk, so overlaps only surface at booking.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Design a minimum advertised price policy for our retail partners.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do we stop partners registering deals they never actually work?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our reseller margin is 20% but our website sells at the same price. Retailers are threatening to drop us.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We want a policy saying which deals partners can take and which stay with our field team.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Channel conflict rules, please.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "A partner rep and one of our reps walked into the same customer meeting last week. Never again. What's the fix?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I split accounts between the direct team and the channel?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write the tie-break rule for duplicate deal registrations.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our comp plan pays reps nothing on partner-sourced deals and it's causing real problems.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We need an adjudication process for partner disputes with SLAs per tier.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What's a reasonable approval SLA for deal registrations?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Give me the rejection reasons we should publish for deal registration.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our top reseller says our field team poached their account. How do I decide who's right?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How should we segment accounts between partner-led and direct-led coverage?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Set up governance for reviewing channel disputes every quarter.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our channel chief leaves every 18 months and the partner rules get rewritten each time.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Should higher partner tiers get a longer protection window, and where do I write that down?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Two distributors both claim the same end customer in Spain.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Amazon sellers are undercutting our authorized dealers. What can we actually do about it?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We're launching a direct-to-consumer site and our wholesale accounts are nervous.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write the policy for what happens when a partner-registered deal transacts through a cloud marketplace instead.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I prove to my CRO that paying reps on channel deals is worth the money?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our partner satisfaction scores are fine but nobody escalates disputes anymore.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "I need a document partners will sign up to about who owns which accounts.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Design the carve-out rules for renewals of partner-sourced deals.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What happens when one of our named accounts gets acquired by a company our partner already owns?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our reps are compensated on the reseller price, not the customer price. Is that a problem?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Help me write the exceptions process for our partner engagement rules.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We're being told to just do named accounts. Is that the right first move?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Partners are complaining that our online pricing beats what we sell to them at.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Set the evidence standard for deciding who owns a contested opportunity.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Draft the section of our partner agreement covering who is allowed to sell to whom.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "The same five accounts get fought over every quarter. Fix the system, not the individual fights.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "What metrics tell me whether our channel rules are actually working?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "How do I structure remediation for the partner that loses a deal dispute?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "We're appointing an exclusive distributor in Germany. What can we legally restrict them from doing?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Our field team found out a partner was on the deal at contract stage. This keeps happening.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Write the amendment procedure for our channel rules so changes don't look arbitrary.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Should registered deals get extra margin, and how much?", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "One reseller keeps land-grabbing accounts they have no relationship with.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Give me the agenda for a workshop to rewrite our partner engagement rules.", "should_trigger": true },
{ "query": "Design our co-sell operating model with the hyperscaler field sellers.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do we split deal credit between partner-sourced and partner-influenced opportunities?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What is a partner seller actually supposed to do on a shared deal once registration is approved?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build the co-sell motion playbook for our alliances team.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Map our whole partner ecosystem and show me where the coverage gaps are.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Run an account overlap analysis across our reseller base.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build a weighted partner scorecard and a prioritization 2x2.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Which partner category should we add next, MSPs or systems integrators?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Sequence our partner category expansion roadmap for the next 18 months.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design our silver, gold and platinum tier criteria and benefit bundles.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What should a partner have to achieve to get promoted a tier?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Migrate our existing partner base into the new tier structure.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Model the unit economics of our biggest reseller relationship.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Is our partner CAC actually lower than our direct CAC?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Should we renegotiate or exit this partner based on their P&L?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Design our partner program from scratch, and tell me whether we're even ready for one.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Should we run a referral motion or a reseller motion first?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Which cloud marketplaces should we list on and what ROI should we expect?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "When is it time to delist from an app marketplace?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build a per-partner scorecard and the QBR structure around it.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What's the underperformance ladder before we de-tier a partner?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Sequence the training and certification our partners need to sell without us.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What should a partner know before their first solo deal?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Rank these six candidate technology alliances for us.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write a go/no-go memo on a strategic alliance with a hyperscaler.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Plan a joint go-to-market motion with our biggest ISV partner.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do we split market development funds on a co-marketing launch?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Customers are gaming our refer-a-friend program with fake accounts.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Set velocity limits and reward holds on our referral program.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Should we reward the referrer, the friend, or both?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How big should our refer-a-friend reward be relative to LTV?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Set the commission rate and cookie window for our affiliate program.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Revenue share or flat CPA for our affiliates?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Build rules to catch cookie stuffing and fake form fills from affiliates.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do I tell real affiliate fraud from a low-incrementality coupon partner?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Audit this month's affiliate payout run before we disburse it.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Check our commission ledger for double-counted conversions.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Draft the terms and conditions affiliates accept when they join.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "What prohibited-tactics clauses belong in an affiliate agreement?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Does this YouTube script meet FTC disclosure rules for an affiliate link?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Check this Instagram caption against UK CAP disclosure rules.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write the welcome sequence for newly approved affiliates.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Draft a cold email to recruit affiliates into our program.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Define the metrics and layout for an affiliate performance dashboard.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Negotiate usage rights and exclusivity with a creator.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write the campaign brief for a creator we just signed.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Shortlist creators for a spring campaign with scoring criteria.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Set the KPIs for measuring an influencer campaign before it launches.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "How do I break into channel partnerships from a sales role?", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write the job description and interview loop for a channel manager.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Resolve the conflict between two engineers on my team who can't agree on the architecture.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "I've got a merge conflict on our main branch, walk me through resolving it.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Two of our AEs in the same region keep arguing over who owns an inbound lead. Fix our territory model.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Write a conflict of interest policy for employees doing outside consulting work.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Draft a dispute resolution and arbitration clause for our standard customer MSA.", "should_trigger": false },
{ "query": "Route this inbound partnerships request to whichever of our playbooks fits and set up the shared project context.", "should_trigger": false }
]
}
references/b2b-b2c-and-legal.md›
# B2C Conflict and Legal Boundaries
Everything in the legal sections below is awareness-level: flag it for counsel review before publication, never draft pricing, territory, or termination clauses as if they were purely commercial. This is not legal advice.
## The consumer-brand contrast
The signature B2C conflict is **D2C vs retail/wholesale partner**: vertical conflict in the classic typology, so the theory transfers. The artifacts do not.
In B2B the vendor controls the rules through contract and comp. In B2C the brand's strongest pricing lever must be structured as a _unilateral_ policy to avoid antitrust liability, and marketplaces will not enforce the brand's policies for it.
- **The route-to-market map is the governing artifact** (the B2C counterpart of the RoE): every route - D2C site, marketplace, wholesale, distributors, retail stores, dealers - documented with owner, customer segment, SKU assortment, pricing authority, fulfillment responsibility, return policy, and approved geography.
- **MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) policy** restricts the price resellers may _advertise_, not the price they sell at. In the US it is viable only as a unilateral Colgate policy: announce, distribute, monitor, refuse to deal with violators - **never negotiate levels, never solicit retailer input, never grant private exceptions, never require signatures**. Any of those risks converting the unilateral policy into a bilateral agreement subject to Sherman Act §1.
- **Channel-exclusive assortment / SKU differentiation is the real structural lever**, not price: retailer-specific SKUs/EANs, colorways, configurations, staggered releases, per-account assortment depth. Price parity alone cannot fix D2C conflict because the conflict is over attention, traffic, and trust - with identical prices the dealer still loses every customer who converts on the brand's own domain.
- **Marketplaces refuse to enforce brand policy.** Amazon explicitly will not enforce MAP or reseller policies on a brand's behalf and welcomes "legitimate unauthorized sellers" as increasing selection and lowering prices. Plan enforcement around that fact, not against it.
- **Grey-market enforcement** runs through trademark's **material-difference doctrine**: genuine goods resold without authorization are generally protected by first-sale, but goods lacking the manufacturer warranty or quality controls are "materially different" and lose that protection. Illustrative cases: _Otter Products v. Triplenet Pricing_ (D. Colo. 2021), _Beltronics v. Midwest Inventory Distribution_ (10th Cir. 2009), _Zino Davidoff v. CVS_ (2d Cir. 2009). Selective-distribution / authorized-reseller agreements are what make these theories available - that is their governance function.
## The Nike reversal - the canonical B2C case
Under the 2017 "Consumer Direct Offense," Nike narrowed to ~40 strategic retail partners and exited "undifferentiated" accounts. By September 2021 its CFO said it had exited about 50% of its retail partners.
DTC rose from 16% of brand sales (2011) to ~42% by FY2023, but never reached the 60% goal. FY2023 net income fell 16%, and Nike could not clear inventory without wholesale shelf space.
It re-entered DSW and Macy's in October 2023, rebuilt Foot Locker, and returned to Amazon in 2025, pairing the retreat with a $2B cost-savings plan. Its CEO conceded in 2024 that it had over-rotated away from wholesale. (Adidas ran a parallel reversal.)
The governance lesson: unilaterally rewriting the route-to-market map against your channel is a strategy decision with multi-year inventory and P&L consequences, not a conflict-resolution tactic. The partners you cut do not come back on the old terms.
## US antitrust - the RPM lineage (flag for counsel)
- _Dr. Miles v. John D. Park & Sons_ (1911): minimum resale-price maintenance per se illegal.
- _United States v. Colgate_ (1919): a manufacturer may unilaterally announce resale prices and refuse to deal with non-compliant resellers - the **Colgate doctrine** MAP policies rely on.
- _Monsanto v. Spray-Rite_ (1984): proving a vertical price conspiracy requires evidence excluding independent action.
- _State Oil v. Khan_ (1997): maximum RPM under the rule of reason.
- _Leegin v. PSKS_ (2007): overruled _Dr. Miles_. Minimum RPM now rule-of-reason federally.
- **State law diverges from _Leegin_, but the per se map is narrower than usually reported** - check the specific state, never a memorized list:
- **Maryland** is the one clean express repealer. Com. Law §11-204(b) (SB 239, effective 1 October 2009) makes a minimum-resale-price agreement an unreasonable restraint per se. §11-209 caps the civil penalty at $10,000 per violation, each continuing day a separate violation.
- **California** under the Cartwright Act is the defensible second case.
- **New York is weaker than reported.** GBL §369-a makes minimum-price agreements _unenforceable_, not per se illegal. _People v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l_, 95 A.D.3d 539 (1st Dep't 2012), rejected the AG's per se theory.
- **Kansas is no longer per se.** _O'Brien v. Leegin_, 294 Kan. 318 (2012), imposed per se treatment. The legislature overrode it the next session: K.S.A. 50-163(b) (L. 2013, ch. 102) directs the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act be construed in harmony with federal antitrust interpretations, rule of reason. §50-163(d) withholds that harmonization from attorney-general actions and indirect-purchaser claims under §50-161. Mark those `[LEGAL REVIEW]` rather than assuming either standard.
- This state-law tail is why national brands use unilateral MAP rather than RPM agreements. The FTC's 2000 music-distribution MAP orders (Docket C-3971) show MAP itself can cross the line when tied to co-op funds and coordinated across distributors.
## EU (flag for counsel)
- **VBER, Regulation (EU) 2022/720** (in force June 2022, to 2034): safe harbor below 30% market share, absent hardcore restrictions.
- **MAP is a hardcore restriction in the EU** - the Vertical Guidelines treat minimum advertised price as indirect RPM, the opposite of its US status. Keep MAP-style policies region-segmented. Never push a US MAP into EU/UK channels.
- **Dual distribution** (supplier selling direct in competition with its distributors - exactly the D2C-vs-retail scenario) has a narrowed safe harbor for information exchange: sharing future prices or identified end-customer data with distributors you compete with is constrained.
- **Active vs passive sales**: active selling into an exclusively allocated territory can be restricted (shared exclusivity up to five distributors). Passive sales generally cannot.
- **Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC)**: self-employed agents get mandatory termination indemnity or compensation, cannot contract out, and a non-EU choice-of-law clause will not defeat it (_Ingmar_). A routine US channel action - terminate at will and reassign the territory - is a mandatory-indemnity trigger in the EU. Treat termination/reassignment and dual-distribution information exchange as legal-review triggers, not operational decisions.
references/compensation-and-incentives.md›
# Compensation Neutrality and Incentive Design
## What neutrality means
Compensation neutrality: the direct rep is paid, or has quota retired, at the same rate whether or not a partner is involved in the deal. By default most comp plans pay direct reps little or nothing on partner-transacted deals, which makes competing against partners the rep's rational move.
The conflict this creates is structural, not attitudinal: no rules-of-engagement document survives a comp plan that pays reps to break it. Programs that rely on rules of engagement alone report the policies routinely circumvented. Comp neutrality is the single most-cited real conflict control across B2B software, two-tier distribution, and consumer channels.
## The three design variants, ranked by efficiency
Behavior change bought per unit of comp spend and rollout effort. Cost and value run the same way here, which is exactly why the efficiency order inverts both: the most expensive variant is not the one to start with:
- efficiency: quota retirement > channel metric in the plan > full commission on channel deals
- value (behavior bought): full commission (reps chase partner deals) > channel metric (reps seek partners out) > quota retirement (reps stop competing with partners)
- effort: full commission (comp-plan amendment, finance sign-off, and the hardest thing on this page to withdraw later) > channel metric (a target to set, track and defend each cycle) > quota retirement (a line in the plan, then nothing)
1. **Quota retirement from channel revenue**: partner-involved revenue retires the rep's quota dollar-for-dollar, or at a haircut (e.g. $0.50 on the dollar). The rep still hits their number on a partner deal. The haircut variant costs less still but reintroduces a mild bias against partner deals: present the trade-off. This is the durable steady state, and the other two step down to it.
2. **A channel metric in the comp plan**: a dollar quota of partner-involved business, or a required share of deals including a partner (e.g. "40% of quota flows through partners"), paying as a secondary metric or accelerator. Actively steers behavior toward partners rather than merely removing the penalty.
3. **Full commission on channel deals as if direct** ("pay both" / double-comp): most expensive, fastest-acting, and the right opener only for an early-stage program that needs direct sales to embrace partners inside one comp cycle. Adopt it only with a stated review date for stepping down to variant 1 or 2: a comp lever is easy to add and politically expensive to take back, so the reversibility cost lands on whoever holds the plan next.
Default rung: quota retirement, full dollar-for-dollar. Move up one rung when the interview shows reps still route around partners under neutral comp, or when a hard date makes slow behavior change unacceptable.
Full commission is what this ratio starves: top of value, top of effort, bottom of efficiency. It is the only variant that makes a direct rep actively want the partner in the deal. Promote it when an early-stage program needs that switch flipped inside one comp cycle and someone senior will defend the plan change.
Where the interview says there is no political capital in the direct sales line, delete it from the menu and say it was deleted. A variant left at the bottom gets proposed again at the next comp cycle by someone who never heard the constraint.
Related mechanisms worth pairing, cheapest first:
- Bonuses for _supporting_ a partner deal rather than taking it over (near-zero, and it targets the exact behavior).
- Channel-sourced deal overrides protecting partner margin when a direct rep assists.
- Partner-attached selling requirements (certain deal types must include a partner even when direct originates: a standing enforcement job).
## The partner-price trap
If the rep is paid (or quota-retired) on the discounted price the partner pays rather than the price the customer pays, the rep earns less on every partner deal even under nominal "neutrality": expect persistent vertical conflict. This is the single most important line-item to check in the direct comp plan, and the neutrality decision must be written into **both** the partner agreement and the direct comp plan. A commitment that exists in only one document is not a commitment.
## Stackable margins
Paying partners at each of several stages: opportunity identification, technical win, transaction, rather than one registration uplift. Explicitly pitched as an antidote to registration abuse: a partner who only registered and did nothing earns only the identification slice, so squatting stops paying. (Trade-press sourced. Adopt as a candidate design, not a default.)
## The genuine dissent
Neutrality is not unanimous: at a partnering-executive roundtable, nearly half of participants opposed comp neutrality on cost grounds, paying full freight on revenue the channel would have delivered anyway.
The honest framing for the user: neutrality trades comp cost for conflict reduction. The dissent is about whether the trade is worth it at their margin structure, not about whether the mechanism works. Model the cost of each variant against gross margin before recommending (per-partner economics belong to the economics sibling skill).
## Provenance flags on the magnitude claims
The direction - neutral comp reduces conflict - is near-universal practitioner consensus. The magnitudes are not evidence: the widely circulated figures (a company doubling sales after adopting channel-neutral comp, deals 181% bigger, win rates 40% higher for collaborative selling) trace to a single self-interested practitioner source (Norma Watenpaugh, via vendor-adjacent content) and are illustrative at best.
Likewise the circulating claim that unresolved conflict cuts partner-sourced pipeline 30-40% is vendor-glossary material. Quote the direction with confidence, the numbers only with flags.
references/deal-registration-and-claims.md›
# Deal Registration as a Claim Instrument
This file treats registration only as the conflict-prevention and claim-adjudication instrument: who may claim a deal, for how long, on what evidence, and what happens when two parties claim the same one. The co-sell mechanics of working a registered deal together belong to the co-sell sibling skill.
## Eligibility and required data
Codify eligibility (minimum deal size, new-logo vs upsell, opportunity type) and required data: customer name and domain, deal size, expected close date, products, and evidence of a real partner relationship with the account. Collect only fields actually used in the approval decision - every unnecessary field is a reason not to submit.
## Protection window
- Observed range **30-180 days, 90 is the most common**. Enterprise cycles run 90-180.
- Sizing rule: **at least ~75% of average sales-cycle length** (a 60-day average cycle makes a 30-day window useless).
- Common shape: 90-day validity from approval, one optional 30-day extension gated on demonstrated activity. Expiry reminders run at 30/14/7 days with one-click renewal.
- Higher partner tiers commonly earn longer windows and priority routing - the criteria belong to the tiering skill.
- Rule on expiry explicitly: an expired registration re-opens the deal. Resubmission is allowed but does not outrank a rival claim filed in the gap.
## Approval SLA
Approve or reject within 1 business day (24h benchmark). The convention ceiling is ~48 hours.
The recurring practitioner finding: partners tolerate a 48-hour process, they do not tolerate an _unpredictable_ one. An "In Review" status that acknowledges receipt without committing to a decision preserves trust while the check runs. (Benchmarks vendor-published, directionally solid.)
## Standard rejection grounds
Codify these so rejection is a rule, not a judgment call:
- Duplicate registration.
- Account already in active direct pipeline or an existing customer.
- Account on the house/named list.
- Not qualified (no budget, timeline, or decision-maker access).
- No verifiable partner relationship with the account (speculative land-grab).
- Thin submission with no evidence of value-add activity.
Every rejection carries its reason: the rejection-reason mix is itself a governance metric.
## Tie-break: two claims on the same deal
The published convention:
- **First-to-register wins.**
- **The tie-breaker is a "substantial work" test**: evidence of active pursuit (meetings held, stakeholders engaged, activity logged), not merely the earlier timestamp.
- **Vendor discretion is the explicit fallback**, exercised by the named adjudicator and documented.
Once one registration is approved, later registrations on the same opportunity are rejected as duplicates with a reason. When the rival claimant is the direct team, the same evidence standard applies - the registration timestamp and first-engagement timeline decide, not seniority - the same evidence standard the tiered escalation ladder applies at every rung.
## Margin and price protection
Registered deals commonly carry **5-15 points of extra margin** over standard partner discount (vendor-published range, one vendor illustration: 18% protected vs 8% standard). Anti-pattern: a flat uniform bump for every deal regardless of size or complexity - it fails to motivate registration of exactly the large strategic deals you most need visibility into.
## Marketplace-transacted deals
Where deals transact through a cloud marketplace, the claim and the transaction can diverge: the customer buys on the marketplace and bypasses the registered partner's margin entirely. Rule on how a registration is honored when the transaction routes through a marketplace - margin routed via the marketplace's partner-offer mechanism, or influence credit for the registered partner.
Named examples, as examples only: AWS Channel Partner Private Offers, Microsoft Multiparty Private Offers, Microsoft's CPOR partner-of-record construct (one partner of record per workload, customer notified and able to opt out). The common failure is registration, co-sell, and marketplace records living in disconnected systems reconciled manually.
## Documented failure modes
| Failure | Mechanism | Fix |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Squatting / hoarding | Partner registers deals it isn't working, blocking others for months | Default expiry plus an activity-based extension test |
| Portal-CRM disconnect | Registration approved for an account already a customer or in active direct pipeline | Auto-check the domain against the CRM at submission; auto-reject with the reason |
| Direct-team overrides | Direct routinely overrides approved registrations | Registration rates collapse and word spreads; executive commitment to honoring registrations is the fix and is non-negotiable |
| Onboarding gap | New partners submit ineligible deals, get rejected, disengage | Teach eligibility at onboarding; show rejection-reason stats back to partners |
| Form friction | Long forms suppress submission | Only decision-relevant fields |
| Bespoke process per edge case | Multi-partner deals, regional handoffs, services-only plays each get special handling | One process; multiple roles allowed on one opportunity; credit split by documented contribution |
## Honest caveat
There is no rigorous public evidence that deal registration reduces _total_ conflict. It is simultaneously the most-recommended and most-criticized instrument in the field.
The criticism (squatting, margin-erosion edge cases, administrative burden) is as well documented as the advocacy, and both rest on practitioner consensus and vendor content rather than independent measurement. Treat it as the standard claim-adjudication instrument, not a proven conflict-reduction device.
references/escalation-and-adjudication.md›
# Escalation and Adjudication
## The ladder
Design the escalation path as a tiered table: adapt tiers to org size, but keep every column:
| Tier | Trigger | Adjudicator | SLA | Required evidence |
| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0: Automated | Duplicate registration or CRM overlap detected at submission | System rule (first-approved wins; later claims rejected with reason) | Real time | Registration timestamps |
| 1: Working level | A party disputes the automated outcome, or overlap surfaces mid-cycle | Partner manager + direct manager together | 48h acknowledgment, decision target within the 48h convention | Registration timestamp, first-engagement timeline, activity logs from both sides |
| 2: Neutral adjudicator | Tier 1 deadlocks, or deal value crosses a stated threshold | Named neutral seat: Head of Channel Ops or deal desk | 48h decision from escalation | Tier 1 record plus written statements from both parties |
| 3: Executive | High-value or precedent-setting disputes; appeals | Channel chief, with CRO consulted; formal disputes within 5 business days | 5 business days | Full case file; decision logged as precedent |
The 48-hour decision and 5-business-day formal-dispute figures are the field's convention, vendor-published rather than independently validated: treat them as the ceiling, not a scientific target. Predictability matters more than raw speed.
## The evidence standard
Decide on evidence, never seniority: the registration timestamp, the timeline of who engaged the customer first, and activity logs of what each party actually did. Write this standard into the RoE so every party knows in advance what wins a dispute: that knowledge prevents more disputes than it resolves.
The most common structural cause of disputes is information asymmetry: the direct rep genuinely doesn't know a partner is engaged because the portal and CRM are disconnected. Conflict from ignorance is a systems defect, not a behavior problem: fix the system of record before blaming either side.
## The neutral adjudicator seat
Name one adjudicator, and never seat the direct sales leader there. The perennial complaint across the field is that when conflicts escalate, direct sales wins. Once partners believe that, they stop registering and stop escalating, which reads as "less conflict" while the channel quietly disengages.
The commonly cited neutral seat is the Head of Channel Ops. The deal desk is the alternative where channel ops doesn't exist yet.
## Process discipline
- **Hear both sides separately before deciding**: separate statements first, then objective analysis from registration records and communication logs. A joint confrontation first hardens positions.
- **Document every decision** with the evidence relied on. Logged decisions become precedents that make the next adjudication faster and more predictable.
- **Provide one appeal**: to the tier above, on new evidence only.
- **Define remediation for the losing side.** This is what preserves the relationship: a partner who loses a claim fairly can still get compensated influence credit, priority on the next comparable opportunity, or a documented margin accommodation. A direct rep who loses keeps quota retirement under the neutrality policy so the loss costs nothing personal. A ruling with no remediation turns every adjudication into a zero-sum fight.
## RACI
| Role | RACI | Owns |
| ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Channel chief | Accountable | The policy itself; ratifies with legal/finance; final backstop for high-value disputes |
| Partner operations | Responsible | Registration hygiene, conflict detection, territory data, system of record, portal publication |
| Deal desk | Responsible for case rulings; Consulted on policy | Neutral adjudication on individual deals; pricing and margin protection |
| Sales leadership / CRO | Consulted (critically) | Comp design: the root-cause lever; without their sign-off comp neutrality never happens |
| Legal / finance | Consulted | Contract rights, territory definitions, pricing-clause compliance |
Startup vs enterprise: early-stage, the channel chief is Responsible and Accountable at once: there is no partner ops or deal desk to delegate to, and the trap is over-regulating with process the company can't staff. Enterprise separates the roles fully (chief partner officer above a dedicated partner ops function) and formalizes the written escalation path with timelines, criteria, and authority levels.
references/governance-cadence-and-metrics.md›
# Governance Cadence and Metrics
## Design workshops: how this profession actually drafts rules
Do not run generic brainstorming. Use the profession's own formats.
- **Channel alignment workshop**: the consulting format for drafting or rewriting the rules.
Shape: stakeholder pre-interviews as a pre-study (direct sales leaders, partner managers, a sample of partners: separately, so each speaks freely) → a facilitated interactive session on a shared canvas → post-analysis → a summary artifact with an action list.
Built around:
- Do partners' business models align with ours?
- How are roles defined across our org, the channel, and the end customer?
- How do we manage conflict today?
The pre-interviews are the load-bearing step: they surface where conflict actually lives before the room negotiates rules for it.
- **Joint account planning**: the working-level format: partner and direct teams plan named shared accounts together, which converts abstract engagement rules into agreed per-account ownership before a dispute exists.
## Standing forums
- **Partner Advisory Council (PAC)**: the profession's standing governance forum: partner executives and vendor leadership in one room, where proposed rule changes get tested before publication.
Design rules that recur:
- The council needs its own stated rules of engagement (meeting frequency, term length, time commitment).
- Internal stakeholder participation matters as much as the invited partners.
- A named internal owner so partners know their contact.
- A genuinely safe space for criticism.
- Minutes, a tracked initiative list, and periodic assessment of the council's own effectiveness.
A PAC that only hears announcements is theatre.
- **Conflict review board / QBR agenda item**: a recurring review of the dispute log: volume, outcomes, time-to-adjudicate, and the pattern read (below). Make channel conflict a standing agenda item in QBRs and sales-leadership reviews rather than a special meeting nobody schedules.
## Metrics
- **Channel conflict rate**: conflict incidents ÷ total channel interactions in the period, weighted by severity (financial impact, sales-process disruption, partner dissatisfaction). A formalized KPI definition exists in public KPI libraries. A documented consumer-electronics case pegged a 15% rate to visible customer complaints about inconsistent cross-channel pricing.
Honest caveat: there is no widely adopted, independently validated metric for "conflict" itself. This rate is a management proxy, and the claim that it "should fall over time if the process works" is a heuristic, not a benchmark.
- **Registration approval rate and rejection-reason mix**: a rising "duplicate" or "already in direct pipeline" share means detection is working late. A rising "no verifiable relationship" share means land-grabbing.
- **Time-to-adjudicate vs SLA**: per tier, against the 48h convention.
- **Registered vs non-registered win rate and deal size**: the internal business case for honoring registrations.
- **Partner satisfaction (PSAT)**: with the caveat that survey scores lag. Leading indicators are behavioral: portal login frequency, partner-manager meeting attendance, collateral downloads, certifications completed. A partner quietly disengaging shows up there quarters before it shows up in a survey: and a partner who has stopped escalating disputes is disengaging, not satisfied.
Read the conflict pattern **by geography, partner tier, product line, and sales motion**, and treat it as a program-design signal: a cluster of disputes on one axis means the rule on that axis is wrong, not that those partners are difficult.
## Review cadence and rewrite triggers
Review the rules on a fixed cadence (annual or semi-annual, aligned to comp-plan cycles so comp and rules change together).
Define off-cycle rewrite triggers in the document itself:
- A new route to market (marketplace, D2C launch).
- M&A on either side.
- A new partner type.
- A territory or segmentation change.
- A legal/regulatory change in a covered geography.
- A dispute cluster on one axis.
An explicit amendment procedure with a notification period is what keeps rule changes from reading as arbitrary, and what stops each incoming channel leader from rewriting the rules from scratch.
references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md›
# The Rules of Engagement Artifact
## Document layering
Keep two layers at different specificity. The signed partner agreement carries the durable legal terms. The rules of engagement live in a referenced exhibit or program-guide annex covering registration rules, conflict detection and resolution, direct-vs-partner engagement rules, and the amendment/notification procedure.
The account list and conflict rules stay in the exhibit, never in the signed contract: otherwise every list refresh means re-papering every partner, so the list never gets refreshed and becomes a conflict source itself.
## Section anatomy
A real RoE document carries, in order:
1. **Sponsorship line**: the named executive who backs the rules. Executive backing is part of the artifact, not a nicety: rules unsupported by vendor leadership are ignored the first time they cost a direct rep a deal.
2. **Account segmentation**: which accounts are direct-only, partner-only, shared-pursuit, and the axis that decides.
3. **House/named/restricted account lists**: accounts reserved for direct regardless of registration.
4. **Deal registration protection**: conditions and duration under which a registered opportunity is protected (details in the registration policy - the RoE states the commitment).
5. **Co-sell expectations**: when direct supports partner deals and vice versa (mechanics belong to the co-sell motion - the RoE states the obligation).
6. **Conflict resolution**: escalation path, decision criteria, named adjudicator.
7. **Exceptions**: how requested, who grants, where logged. Track recurring exception requests: if everyone asks for the same one, promote it to a rule.
8. **Amendment procedure**: review cadence, notification period, where the current version is published.
## Segmentation axes
Rows run in the efficiency order set in the skill's workflow step 4: conflict prevented per unit of ongoing effort: so read top-down and stop when two axes cover the disputes you actually have. Present 2-3 as candidates with trade-offs. Most programs combine two.
| Axis | Rule shape | Ongoing effort | Trade-off |
| ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Deal-size threshold | Direct above an ARR/contract-value line, partners below | None once written | Simple, and covers every account at once, but invites gaming at the boundary and fights over expansions |
| Motion | e.g. new-logo partner-eligible, renewals direct | An occasional edge-case ruling | Needs explicit renewal/expansion rules or it just moves the conflict |
| Product line | Partners sell some products, direct sells others | An occasional edge-case ruling | Meaningless on a single-product portfolio; works until bundled deals cross the line |
| Geography/territory | Partner-led regions vs direct regions | Re-mapping when the footprint moves | Clean until a distributed customer spans both; carries the only compliance exposure of the five (EU territory exclusivity and active/passive-sales limits: flag for counsel) |
| Named accounts | Listed accounts are direct-only | A standing job: owner, refresh cadence, edge-case rules | Highest precision on the strategic deals that actually get escalated, and the only axis that becomes a conflict source of its own when it decays |
## Account lists and their staleness problem
Named/house lists are the perennial operational weakness: they decay, and a stale list generates conflict instead of preventing it.
Write into the RoE:
- A named list owner.
- A refresh cadence (quarterly is common).
- The definition of "named" (does it ever change ownership?).
- Separate rules per revenue event: net-new, expansion, renewal, win-back, referral.
A single blanket rule breaks on the first renewal a partner sourced.
Hard edge cases to rule on explicitly, because each is a recurring dispute generator:
- Parent/child account hierarchies (does a named parent capture every subsidiary?).
- M&A (acquirer's status vs target's).
- Distributed headquarters.
- Holding companies.
- Renewals of partner-sourced deals.
- Win-backs of churned accounts.
- Expansion inside an account another party landed.
Directional sizing (vendor-published, treat as illustrative): 50-500 named accounts per rep depending on complexity. Enterprise commonly 20-50 strategic accounts per AE, mid-market 100-200.
## Published real examples
- **AvePoint Partner Program Terms** (avepoint.com channel terms): a rare publicly posted vendor document referencing a formal RoE annex.
Operative commitment: if a reseller holds a granted deal registration, the vendor will not proactively engage in direct-sales efforts on that deal. The same protection extends to distributor-granted registrations. Citable example of commitment language a real vendor will publish.
- **Gradient Works Rules of Engagement Toolkit**: the strongest public artifact on the account-list half: prompts for separate rules per revenue event and for every hard edge case above.
- **Partner Principles templates** (partnerprinciples.com): a reseller RoE template plus an account-mapping template for joint account-mapping calls.
SKILL.md›
---
name: partner-channel-conflict
description: Write the channel conflict rules that govern contested deals between direct sales and channel partners or between partners - rules of engagement, account segmentation, named-account carve-outs, deal registration as a claim instrument (protection window, tie-break, rejection grounds), compensation neutrality for direct reps, escalation and adjudication ladders, and governance cadence. Also covers consumer brands (D2C vs retail conflict, MAP policy, channel-exclusive assortment). Use whenever the user mentions channel conflict, partner disputes, deal poaching, or two routes to market claiming the same account, even if they never say conflict. Do NOT use for designing the co-sell operating model - use mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@co-selling-strategy instead.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: Maya-Beth Finotti
version: "1.3.9"
---
# Partner Channel Conflict Rules
Write the rules that decide who owns a contested deal when direct sales and channel partners, or two partners, claim the same account, and the governance that enforces them.
The deliverable is a rules-of-engagement (RoE) artifact plus its adjudication machinery:
- Structural boundaries.
- A registration-based claim policy.
- An escalation ladder with a named adjudicator.
- A compensation-neutrality decision.
- A governance cadence.
Diagnosis anchors on two frameworks: the vertical / horizontal / multichannel conflict typology (Stern & El-Ansary, _Marketing Channels_, 1977; current edition Palmatier, Sivadas, Stern & El-Ansary, _Marketing Channel Strategy: An Omni-Channel Approach_, 9th ed., 2019), and the latent → perceived → felt → manifest stage progression. Resolution gets harder at each later stage, which is the whole argument for writing rules before the first manifest dispute. Forrester's _Mitigating Channel Conflict: Rules Of Engagement_ is the on-point analyst artifact for the deliverable's shape.
Boundaries, said out loud:
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-ecosystem` detects and measures conflict zones (account overlap, coverage gaps) and hands off here. This skill starts where detection stops.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@co-selling-strategy` owns how direct and partners collaborate on shared deals. Deal registration appears here only as a conflict-prevention and claim-adjudication instrument: the protection window, the tie-break, the rejection grounds, and what happens when two parties claim the same deal.
## Interview
Ask before proposing anything: one question per message, multiple-choice when possible, skip anything the user already answered.
- B2B, B2C, or hybrid?
- What does the company sell, and through which motions - direct, resell, referral, co-sell, marketplace-transacted, D2C, retail?
- Sales org shape, and how are direct reps compensated today on a partner-involved deal - neutral, penalized, undefined? (This answer outweighs every other.)
- Which partner types exist, and roughly how many are active?
- What is the average sales-cycle length, in days? (It sizes the registration protection window - the pass threshold requires at least 75% of it, so a window set without this number is a guess.)
- Where does conflict actually show up today, with what evidence - logged disputes, partner complaints, deals lost to infighting, or only anecdote?
- Are registrations visible in the CRM system of record at opportunity creation, or only in a partner portal the direct team never opens?
- What artifacts already exist: rules of engagement, named-account list, registration policy, comp-plan language on partner deals?
- Escalation culture: when disputes escalate today, does direct sales always win?
- Who must sign off: channel chief, CRO, deal desk, legal?
- Geography - any EU presence? EU rules constrain territory, termination, and pricing clauses (flag for counsel).
- By what date must the rules be in force - is a live dispute or a deadline driving this, or is it open-ended? (A hard date promotes the fast-acting rungs - a deal-size threshold, double comp, a QBR agenda item - and demotes named-account lists and a Partner Advisory Council, which only pay off over quarters.)
- A one-off fix for the disputes on the table now, or a compounding governance asset? (Compounding promotes the alignment workshop, the Partner Advisory Council, and named accounts. One-off promotes a threshold, published rules and a neutral adjudicator, and nothing beyond them.)
- Effort ceiling: who maintains this after publication, for how many hours a quarter, and how much political capital do you hold in the direct sales line? (No list owner rules out the named-account axis. No capital in the sales line means comp neutrality will not clear, so the structural axes carry the whole load.)
## Workflow
Hold one discipline throughout: wherever a real choice exists - segmentation axis, protection-window length, tie-break rule, comp-neutrality variant, adjudicator seat - present 2-3 candidates with trade-offs and a recommendation, then wait. Present the deliverable section by section, validating each with the user before drafting the next, with an explicit approval gate before finalizing.
Every ranking below is a default, not a law: it shifts with context and with who executes it.
Re-rank against the Interview answers and against what you already know about this company:
- A CRM that already carries the segmentation field makes that axis nearly free.
- An account-list owner already in post removes the standing cost of named accounts.
- An existing deal desk absorbs the adjudicator seat.
Say which fact moved which option when presenting the order. Strike the options the answers rule out where each menu is presented, rather than carrying them to the bottom of the list.
1. Run the Interview.
2. Classify each reported conflict with the typology: vertical (direct vs partner), horizontal (partner vs partner), multichannel (route vs route; D2C vs retail for consumer brands). Locate it on the latent → perceived → felt → manifest progression:
- Latent conflict gets structural rules.
- Manifest conflict needs an adjudicated case and visible remediation before any new rule will be believed.
3. Audit the economics before writing any rule.
Compensation neutrality: the direct rep paid, or quota retired, at the same rate whether or not a partner is involved. It is the most-cited real control in this field. A program with elaborate rules of engagement but non-neutral comp is structurally conflicted no matter how good the document is.
Specific trap: reps paid on the discounted price the partner pays, rather than the customer price, predicts persistent vertical conflict.
Honest caveat: the direction is practitioner consensus, the magnitude figures are single-sourced and vendor-interested.
Variants ranked by efficiency, with the axes on which cost and behavior change disagree: [references/compensation-and-incentives.md](references/compensation-and-incentives.md).
4. Set the structural boundaries. Pick the segmentation axis on conflict prevented per unit of ongoing effort, not on precision - precision is what makes named accounts look like the obvious first move:
- efficiency: deal-size threshold > motion carve-out > geography > product line > named accounts
- value: named accounts > deal-size threshold > geography > motion carve-out > product line
- effort: named accounts (a standing job - owner, refresh cadence, edge-case rules) > geography (a week to map, plus counsel where territories are exclusive) > motion carve-out == product line (an hour to write, then a recurring edge-case ruling on renewals or bundles) > deal-size threshold (an hour, then nothing)
- compliance cost: geography (EU territory exclusivity and active/passive-sales limits - counsel before publication) > every other axis (near-zero)
Motion carve-out and product line tie on effort for a reason, not to duck the call: each is one sentence in the RoE, and neither carries an owner or a refresh cadence. Both buy the same recurring bill of edge-case rulings: a renewal on a carved-out motion, a bundle spanning two product lines.
They part company on value, and the motion carve-out wins that axis outright.
What this order starves is named accounts: first on value, first on effort, dead last on efficiency, so a ratio demotes it every single round. Yet it is the only axis that resolves disputes on the accounts a company actually argues about.
Promote it when disputes cluster on a handful of strategic accounts _and_ a list owner already exists. It is the one axis that becomes a conflict source of its own when it goes stale.
Where no owner exists, delete it from this menu and say in the RoE that the program has no named-account axis. An axis parked at the bottom "for later" returns as a list nobody maintains, which is the failure mode below.
Same rule for the axes the Interview already rules out: a single-product portfolio deletes product line, a single-region footprint deletes geography, and both get named as deleted rather than listed as future phases.
Default: a deal-size threshold plus one motion carve-out - most programs need exactly two axes. Where named accounts survive the test above, define the house/named lists with that owner and a refresh cadence, and keep the list and the conflict rules in an RoE exhibit rather than the signed contract, so they update without re-papering every partner. See [references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md](references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md).
5. Define the claim instrument:
- Registration eligibility.
- Required data.
- Protection window (30-180 days observed, 90 most common, at least ~75% of average sales-cycle length).
- Approval SLA.
- Extension and expiry.
- Standard rejection grounds.
- Tie-break: first-to-register, with a substantial-work test, vendor discretion as fallback.
See [references/deal-registration-and-claims.md](references/deal-registration-and-claims.md).
6. Design the escalation and adjudication ladder:
- Tiers with triggers, adjudicator, SLA.
- A written evidence standard: registration timestamp, first-engagement timeline, activity logs, never seniority.
Name a neutral adjudicator who is not the direct sales leader, and define remediation for whichever side loses. See [references/escalation-and-adjudication.md](references/escalation-and-adjudication.md).
7. Set the governance cadence and metrics. Rank the forums on conflict prevented per unit of standing effort:
- efficiency: QBR standing agenda item > channel alignment workshop > joint account planning > Partner Advisory Council
- value: channel alignment workshop (grounds the rules in where conflict actually lives) > Partner Advisory Council (rule changes partners accept before publication) > joint account planning (per-account ownership agreed before a dispute exists) > QBR item (drift stays visible)
- effort: Partner Advisory Council (a standing job) > channel alignment workshop (a week, once, at drafting or rewrite) > joint account planning (a day per named account per cycle) > QBR item (near-zero - one line on a meeting that already happens)
The starved forum here is the Partner Advisory Council: second on value, first on effort, last on efficiency, so it never survives a ratio. Yet it is the only forum that gets partners to accept a rule change before it is published, rather than dispute it afterwards.
Promote it when a rewrite touches money partners already earn (margin, protection window, registration eligibility), where publishing unilaterally costs more trust than the council costs hours.
Where nobody can staff a standing job, delete it from the governance plan and say so. A council listed as a future forum reads as consultation partners never actually get.
Default: the QBR item plus one alignment workshop at drafting. Add joint account planning once named accounts exist, and delete it outright where the named-account axis was struck in step 4, since there are no accounts to plan against.
Run design sessions in these formats: this profession has its own, so never substitute generic brainstorming. Start the metrics on the registration rejection-reason mix. The full ranking is in [references/governance-cadence-and-metrics.md](references/governance-cadence-and-metrics.md).
8. Publish and enforce:
- Rules live where partners actually read them (the partner portal, not an internal drive).
- Registrations write to the CRM system of record so overlap is visible at opportunity creation.
- Executive backing is named inside the document: it is part of the artifact, not a nicety.
An unenforced rule destroys partner trust faster than no rule.
9. Validate against the Pass Threshold. Iterate until every criterion holds.
10. If your harness has persistent memory, memorize the approved rules of engagement, the named-account carve-outs, and the adjudication precedents so a later run starts from them instead of re-interviewing.
## Pass Threshold
The rules are done when all of these hold. Iterate until they do:
- **Comp neutrality decided** - and the decision written into both the partner agreement and the direct comp plan, not just one.
- **Registration visible in the CRM at opportunity creation**, not only at booking or inside a disconnected portal.
- **Protection window ≥ ~75% of average sales-cycle length.**
- **Adjudication SLA defined per escalation tier** - 48-hour decision at the working-level and neutral-adjudicator tiers, up to 5 business days at the executive tier for precedent-setting disputes and appeals. Do not apply the 48-hour figure to the executive rung: both numbers are this field's convention. Keep this separate from the registration _approval_ SLA, which is 24-48h and is a different clock.
- **A named adjudicator who is not the direct sales leader.**
- **A documented tie-break** for two claims on the same deal.
- **Remediation defined for the losing side** of every adjudication.
- **Every quoted benchmark carries a provenance flag** - this field's numbers are mostly vendor-published marketing. Label primary, trade, and vendor claims apart.
- **Rules published where partners can actually read them.**
## The Rules of Engagement Artifact
Deliver the approved rules as this artifact - full section anatomy in [references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md](references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md):
```
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: <company>, <version>, <date>, <named executive sponsor>
Segmentation : which accounts are direct-only, partner-only, shared: and the axis that decides
Account lists : house/named accounts, list owner, refresh cadence, edge-case rules (kept as an
exhibit, updatable without re-papering)
Registration : eligibility, required data, protection window, approval SLA, extension/expiry,
rejection grounds, tie-break
Compensation : the neutrality statement, mirrored in the direct comp plan
Escalation : ladder (tier, trigger, adjudicator, SLA), evidence standard, remediation, appeal
Exceptions : how requested, who grants, where logged
Governance : review cadence, off-cycle rewrite triggers, where published, amendment procedure
```
## B2B and B2C
Identical on both sides:
- The vertical/horizontal/multichannel taxonomy.
- Misaligned economics (not personality) as the root cause.
- A single system of record.
- Segmentation as the first structural control.
- Pricing consistency across routes.
- The governance cadence.
Genuinely different:
| Dimension | B2B | B2C |
| ----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Claim instrument | Deal registration with a protection window | None - the route-to-market map is the governing artifact |
| Economic control | Comp neutrality; margin routing on co-sell and marketplace-transacted deals | MAP as a strictly unilateral policy (antitrust - never negotiated) |
| Structural lever | Named accounts, deal-size and motion carve-outs | Channel-exclusive assortment / SKU differentiation |
| Enforcement | Contract and comp - the vendor controls both | Marketplaces refuse to enforce brand policy; grey-market enforcement via trademark material-difference doctrine |
| Canonical failure | Direct sales overrides approved registrations | Assuming MSRP price parity solves D2C conflict - the conflict is attention, traffic, and trust (the Nike reversal) |
Full contrast, the Nike case with dates and figures, and the US/EU legal boundaries: [references/b2b-b2c-and-legal.md](references/b2b-b2c-and-legal.md).
## Failure Modes
| Failure | Fix |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Policy as theatre - rules exist but are not enforced | Enforce or delete; an unenforced rule destroys partner trust faster than no rule |
| Direct sales always wins escalations | Neutral adjudicator outside the sales line + comp neutrality; the fix is structural, not behavioral |
| Registration squatting - partners hoard deals they aren't working | Default expiry plus an activity-based extension test |
| Portal and CRM disconnected - conflict surfaces at booking | Registrations write to the CRM at submission; auto-check the account against active pipeline |
| Stale named-account list becomes a conflict source itself | Named list owner, refresh cadence, and edge-case rules in the RoE exhibit |
| Flat registration incentive regardless of deal size | Differentiate the uplift; a flat bump fails to surface the large strategic deals you most need visibility into |
| A new process invented per edge case | One consistent process; allow multiple roles on one opportunity, split credit by documented contribution |
| Over-regulating an early-stage program | Minimum viable set: registration with conflict detection, published rules, aligned comp, territory boundaries |
| Rules rewritten at every channel-leader turnover | Average channel-chief tenure is 4.2 years, 2-3 outside the largest companies (Jay McBain, analysis of 337 channel chiefs) - anchor rules to an executive sponsor and amendment procedure, not one person |
| MSRP price parity assumed to solve D2C conflict | The conflict is over attention, traffic, and trust; the structural lever is assortment differentiation, not price alone |
## Invocation Examples
- "Direct reps and two resellers keep claiming the same accounts. Write the rules of engagement - 120-day average cycle, comp currently penalizes partner deals."
- "We need a deal-registration claim policy with a tie-break our partners will accept. Registrations live in a portal our AEs never open."
- "Our D2C store is undercutting our retail partners. Write the route-to-market rules and flag what needs counsel."
## Reference
- [references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md](references/rules-of-engagement-artifact.md) - RoE anatomy, segmentation axes, account-list staleness and edge cases, document layering, published real examples.
- [references/deal-registration-and-claims.md](references/deal-registration-and-claims.md) - registration as a claim instrument: window sizing, SLA, rejection grounds, tie-break, failure modes, and the honest evidence caveat.
- [references/compensation-and-incentives.md](references/compensation-and-incentives.md) - comp neutrality variants with cost ordering, the partner-price trap, stackable margins, the genuine dissent, provenance flags.
- [references/escalation-and-adjudication.md](references/escalation-and-adjudication.md) - the tiered ladder, evidence standard, neutral-adjudicator seat, remediation, RACI.
- [references/governance-cadence-and-metrics.md](references/governance-cadence-and-metrics.md) - Partner Advisory Council, channel alignment workshop, conflict metrics, review triggers.
- [references/b2b-b2c-and-legal.md](references/b2b-b2c-and-legal.md) - D2C vs retail, MAP and the Colgate doctrine, the Nike case, US/EU legal boundaries (flag for counsel, never legal advice).
Sibling skills (same collection):
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-channel-program` - overall program structure the rules live inside.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-tiering` - tier criteria and benefits (tiers may earn longer protection windows: the criteria live there).
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-economics` - per-partner unit economics behind the comp decisions.
- `mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-performance` - partner scorecards and QBR structure the conflict metrics feed into.