improve the writeup Subject: Request for Reconsideration - Claim ID: 3206596

Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

This email disputes the rejection of our Proof of Execution (POE) claim for the Threat Protection engagement with Saudi Company for Hardware (Claim ID 3206596). We firmly believe our submission aligns with all requirements outlined in the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide, MCI Program Guide, and POE documentation standards. We aim to clarify our position and provide a comprehensive explanation to address the concerns raised regarding the customer contact email domain used for consent and surveys.

It is crucial to recognize that while email addresses are used for communication within the MCI program, they are not the primary identifier for validating customer association. The primary validation hinges on the Tenant ID, which accurately represents the customer's specific environment where engagement activities are conducted.

During the claim creation process, we provided the domain saco.sa, and Microsoft's system correctly fetched the corresponding Tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49. This Tenant ID is prominently displayed on the Partner Center claims page for this claim and consistently appears throughout our POE documentation, specifically on pages 8 and 12. This demonstrates a clear and irrefutable link between the claim and the customer's technical environment, fulfilling the primary validation requirement.

We acknowledge that the customer consent and survey emails were sent to an email address with a domain different from the one associated with the customer ID. This was done at the explicit request of the client to comply with their internal privacy policies and regional regulations governing Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The client specifically requested the non-usage of their work email for any consent or survey communications to maintain confidentiality and adhere to their internal security measures.

Importantly, the email address used for consent and the survey is the same one we entered as the customer contact information during the initial creation of this claim. This consistent use of the same email address throughout the entire claim process reinforces our commitment to respecting the client's preferences, adhering to their privacy requirements, and ensuring transparency.

We understand that Microsoft's guidelines recommend aligning email domains for consistency. However, we also recognise that the MCI Program Guide and POE documentation requirements do not explicitly mandate this alignment. These guidelines acknowledge that using alternate email addresses is acceptable with proper justification, as long as the Tenant ID validation remains intact. We provided this justification during the "Associate Customer" stage of claim creation, and Microsoft's Partner Center system accepted our explanation, allowing us to proceed. This initial acceptance suggests our approach aligned with Microsoft's procedures and demonstrated compliance with their guidelines.

Furthermore, we want to emphasize that the rejection feedback primarily focuses on the email domain discrepancy and does not challenge the accuracy of the Tenant ID presented in our documentation. This further indicates that the email domain serves a secondary function, mainly for communication, while the Tenant ID remains the crucial element for validating customer association.

The Threat Protection engagement with Saudi Company for Hardware was meticulously executed and completed by our team, following all requirements outlined in the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of the client's security posture, discovered real threats and vulnerabilities within their production environment, and provided them with actionable recommendations to enhance their security.

Our submitted POE includes all required components as specified in the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide:

Partner Survey: Completed.

Customer Survey: Completed.

Invoice in USD: Uploaded, matching the agreed payout amount for the engagement.

POE document: Uploaded, demonstrating the engagement activities and results, including screenshots that confirm the activities were conducted within the client's production environment, identified by the Tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49.

We have taken great care to ensure that our submission meets all documentation standards, masking sensitive information appropriately as per the POE template guidance.

Request for Reconsideration

Based on the clarifications provided, we respectfully request you reconsider the rejection of our claim. We have demonstrated:

Technical Validation: The Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49) associated with the customer is consistent across all documentation, including the Partner Center claims page and our POE submission.

Justification for Email Domain Usage: This comment provides a clear justification for using an alternate email domain for customer contact based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion, and was rightly linked to the customer id, right from the time of creation of this claim.

Engagement Completion and POE Compliance: The Threat Protection engagement was successfully delivered and completed according to Microsoft's guidelines. Our submitted POE meets all requirements, including the mandatory and selectable modules, and includes all necessary documentation to demonstrate the engagement activities and results.

We believe that our claim is valid and should be approved. We are committed to upholding Microsoft's standards and are available to provide any further clarification or documentation needed to facilitate a favourable resolution.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name] [Your Company] [Your Partner ID: 6884471]