build a compelling dispute email based on the attached paste. be polite yet firm. Combined note
New saved note
Thank you for sharing these links. Here are some comments based on a thorough review of the guidelines:

Tenant ID is the primary identifier for customer validation, not email address. The rejection feedback focuses on the email domain discrepancy without challenging the Tenant ID. This suggests that the email domain's role is secondary for communication, while the Tenant ID remains critical for validating customer association [1, 2].
The Microsoft system successfully fetched the Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49) from the provided domain (saco.sa) during claim creation. This ID appears on your Partner Center claims page and throughout your POE documentation [1, 2].
Microsoft does not mandate email domains for consent and surveys to match the customer ID. Alternate email addresses are acceptable with justification as long as the Tenant ID is validated [2, 3].
You provided justification for using an alternate email domain based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. This justification was accepted during the "Associate Customer" stage [2, 3].
The Threat Protection engagement was completed following the requirements, including conducting a security assessment, discovering vulnerabilities, and providing recommendations [4].
The POE contains all required components: Partner Survey, Customer Survey, Invoice in USD, and the POE document. Screenshots in the POE document confirm activities within the client's environment, identified by the Tenant ID [2, 5].
Your submission meets all documentation standards, including masking sensitive information as per the POE template guidance [2, 5].
Key Points from the Sources:

CPOR (Claiming Partner of Record) is a process where partners claim incentives based on activities performed for customers, including usage, pre-sales activities, and deployments [6].
Proof of Execution (POE) is required to validate partner activities and claim incentives. Acceptable POE must be substantive, relevant, and align with documented activities [7-11].
Partners must disclose potential fees, commissions, or compensation from Microsoft to customers, especially public sector entities, for non-transacting activities [12].
Automated Referral Management (ARM) automatically creates Partner Center referrals when certain conditions are met in specific engagements, including deal size and customer segment [13-15].
The Threat Protection engagement is designed to drive customer intent for purchasing and/or deploying advanced Microsoft Security products [4]. It involves discovering threats and vulnerabilities in the customer's production environment and providing recommendations.
Recommendations:

Re-emphasize the consistent use of the correct Tenant ID throughout your claim and documentation. This reinforces the direct link between your activities and the customer's environment.
Highlight that your client successfully completed the consent and survey processes using their chosen email address. This demonstrates that the client was actively engaged despite the different domain.
Reiterate your adherence to all POE requirements, particularly highlighting the inclusion of screenshots showing activities conducted within the client's environment, identified by the Tenant ID.
Consider adding a statement about your understanding of the importance of customer disclosure regarding potential fees. This demonstrates your awareness of ethical considerations.
It is important to personalize this response with information specific to your engagement and situation. This will further strengthen your case for reconsideration.

New saved note
Subject: Dispute for Claim ID 3206596 - Threat Protection Engagement with Saudi Company for Hardware

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) [1-3]. Our submission aligns with the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide, MCI Program Guide, and POE documentation standards [4-6]. This email clarifies our position and addresses concerns about the customer contact email domain used for consent and surveys [4].

Email Addresses Are Not Primary Identifiers

While email addresses are used for communication, the primary identifier for customer validation is the Tenant ID [7-9]. The Tenant ID accurately represents the customer's environment where engagement activities are conducted [9, 10].

• During claim creation, we provided the domain saco.sa, and the system fetched the Tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49 [11-13]. • This Tenant ID is displayed on the Partner Center claims page and throughout our POE documentation, specifically pages 8 and 12 [11-13]. • This demonstrates the link between the claim and the customer's technical environment [11].

Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain

We acknowledge that the customer consent and survey emails were sent to a different domain than the customer ID [14]. This was at the client's request to comply with their internal privacy policies and regional regulations regarding PII [14-16]. The client requested not to use their work email for consent or survey communications [14].

• The email address used for consent and the survey is consistent with the customer contact information provided during claim creation [17, 18]. • This consistent use of the same email address respects the client's preferences, their privacy requirements, and ensures transparency [17].

While Microsoft recommends aligning email domains for consistency, the MCI Program Guide and POE documentation requirements do not explicitly mandate this alignment [19, 20].

• Alternate email addresses are acceptable with proper justification, as long as the Tenant ID validation remains intact [15, 19-21]. • We provided justification during the "Associate Customer" stage, and the Partner Center system accepted our explanation [16, 19]. • This initial acceptance suggests compliance with Microsoft's guidelines [19].

The rejection feedback focuses on the email domain discrepancy and does not challenge the accuracy of the Tenant ID [22]. This indicates the email domain's secondary function for communication, while the Tenant ID remains crucial for validating customer association [22].

Engagement Completion and POE Compliance

The Threat Protection engagement was completed following all requirements [23, 24]. We conducted a security assessment, discovered threats and vulnerabilities, and provided recommendations [23].

Our POE includes all required components:

Partner Survey: Completed [25]
Customer Survey: Completed [26]
Invoice in USD: Uploaded [27]
POE document: Uploaded, demonstrating engagement activities and results, including screenshots confirming activities within the client's environment, identified by the Tenant ID [27-29].
Our submission meets all documentation standards, masking sensitive information appropriately [28-30].

Request for Reconsideration

We request you reconsider the rejection of our claim based on:

Technical Validation: The Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49) is consistent across all documentation [31-33].
Justification for Email Domain Usage: A clear justification was provided and accepted during claim creation for using an alternate email domain based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The same email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion [34-36].
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 and includes all necessary documentation [23, 37-41].
We are committed to upholding Microsoft's standards and are available to provide any further clarification or documentation [42, 43].

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Company]

[Your Partner ID]

New saved note
Addressing Claim Rejection Based on Email Domain Discrepancy
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

This message formally disputes the recent 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.

Email Addresses Are Not Primary Identifiers for Customer Validation
It is crucial to recognise 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.

Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain
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.

Successfully Completed Engagement and Submitted POE
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. [1]
Customer Survey: Completed. [2]
Invoice in USD: Uploaded, matching the agreed payout amount for the engagement. [3]
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. [4, 5]
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. [6, 7]
Justification for Email Domain Usage: A clear justification was provided and accepted during claim creation for using an alternate email domain for customer contact based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The same email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion. [8-10]
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. [11, 12]
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] [7]

New saved note
Addressing Claim Rejection Based on Email Domain Discrepancy
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

This message formally disputes the recent 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.

Email Addresses Are Not Primary Identifiers for Customer Validation
It is crucial to recognise 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.

Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain
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.

Successfully Completed Engagement and Submitted POE
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. [1]
Customer Survey: Completed. [2]
Invoice in USD: Uploaded, matching the agreed payout amount for the engagement. [3]
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. [4, 5]
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. [6, 7]
Justification for Email Domain Usage: A clear justification was provided and accepted during claim creation for using an alternate email domain for customer contact based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The same email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion. [8-10]
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. [11, 12]
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] [7]

New saved note
Dispute Write-up for Claim Rejection
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

This message formally disputes the recent rejection of our Proof of Execution (POE) claim for the Threat Protection engagement with Saudi Company for Hardware. We believe our submission fully adheres to Microsoft's requirements, and we would like to clarify our position.

Addressing the Identified Issues
The rejection reasons relate to the customer contact email domain used for consent and survey responses. We want to highlight the following:

Justification Provided During Claim Creation: We provided a clear justification for using an alternate email domain during the "Associate Customer" stage of claim creation. The Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide details this workflow, where partners can select locations and associate customers. [1, 2] This justification, based on the client's internal policies and regional regulations regarding Personally Identifiable Information (PII) protection, was accepted by the Partner Center system, allowing us to proceed. This initial acceptance indicates our approach aligned with Microsoft's procedures. [1-3]
Customer Consent and Survey Completion: The client granted consent and completed the survey using the specified email address, fulfilling the engagement requirements. [4, 5] Importantly, the email ID used for consent and the survey is the same one provided as the customer contact information when this claim was initially created. [3] This consistent use of the same email address underscores our commitment to respecting the client's preferences and adhering to their privacy requirements.
Microsoft Guidelines on Email Domain Usage: The MCI Program Guide and POE documentation requirements do not mandate that customer consent and survey emails must originate from the same domain as the customer ID. They allow for the use of alternate emails with proper justification. [6, 7] We have provided this justification based on the client's request and compliance needs.
Emphasising Technical Validation and Compliance
Technical Domain and Tenant ID Consistency: From the outset, we provided the domain saco.sa during claim creation. Microsoft's system automatically fetched the tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49 based on this domain. This tenant ID is visible on the Partner Center claims page and consistently appears in our POE documentation, specifically on pages 8 and 12. [3, 8, 9] This confirms that all technical and engagement activities align with the registered domain and tenant, satisfying the primary validation requirement.
Adherence to Documentation Standards: Our submission follows Microsoft's documentation standards. Sensitive information is masked as per the POE template guidance, ensuring data security and compliance. [10] Screenshots confirm that all engagements were conducted within the customer's production environment. [10]
Proof of Execution (POE) Components: Our submitted POE includes all required components: Partner Survey, Customer Survey, Invoice in USD, and the POE document. [5, 11, 12] We understand the importance of thorough documentation and have ensured our submission meets all criteria outlined in the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide. [11]
Highlighting Engagement Value and Impact
The Threat Protection engagement aims to help customers purchase and/or deploy advanced Microsoft Security products. [13] Our engagement with Saudi Company for Hardware successfully achieved these objectives, demonstrated through:

Identification of Customer Security Objectives: We worked closely with the client to understand their key security objectives and priorities, tailoring the engagement to their specific needs. [14]
Discovery of Threats and Vulnerabilities: We conducted a thorough discovery process, leveraging the customer's existing licenses and product trials to identify real security threats and vulnerabilities within their production environment. [14] This involved:
Mandatory Modules: Microsoft Defender Portal (Microsoft Defender XDR) and Cloud Identity Protection (Entra ID Protection, Entra Conditional Access) [15]
Selectable Modules: At least three modules were completed, chosen based on the client's specific requirements. [15]
Recommendations and Next Steps: Based on our findings, we provided the client with concrete recommendations and a clear roadmap for addressing the identified threats and vulnerabilities, enabling them to enhance their security posture. [16]
Request for Reconsideration
Given these clarifications, we respectfully request you re-evaluate our claim based on the following:

Technical domain and tenant ID consistency across all documentation, fulfilling the primary validation requirement.
Microsoft's system accepted the provided contact details during claim creation, and the client successfully completed the consent and survey processes.
Our submission adheres to Microsoft's guidelines, and we have provided all necessary documentation to substantiate the execution and delivery of the engagement.
We are committed to Microsoft's standards and are available to provide further clarification. We are hopeful for a favourable resolution.

Sincerely,

[Your Name] [Your Company] [Your Partner ID]

New saved note
Email Cannot Be the Primary Identifier
It's true that email addresses cannot be the primary identifier for validating customer association in MCI Partner Activities claims. While email addresses are used for communication purposes like sending consent requests and surveys, the primary validation relies on the Tenant ID.

Here's why:

Claim Creation Process: During claim creation, the Customer ID plays a crucial role. As illustrated in the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide, this process involves associating a Customer ID (which could be a TPID, Tenant ID, Subscription ID, or domain name depending on the Solution Area and payout type [1]) with the claim. The system might automatically fetch the Tenant ID based on the domain name provided, as appears to have happened in your case [2]. This establishes a direct link between the claim and the customer's technical environment, represented by the Tenant ID [1].
Tenant ID as the Key Link: The Tenant ID acts as the unique identifier for a customer's instance within Microsoft's systems [3]. It represents their specific environment where the engagement activities are performed and serves as the key validation point. This ensures the claimed activities are genuinely linked to the correct customer environment, preventing any misattribution of incentives.
POE Documentation Emphasis: The POE documentation requirements consistently highlight the importance of the Tenant ID. The guidelines state that the POE must demonstrate "unique, customer-specific details", confirming that the engagement activities were performed within the customer's actual environment, as identified by the Tenant ID [4]. This reinforces the notion that the Tenant ID, and not the email address, holds primary significance for validation.
Rejection Criteria and Focus on Technical Validation: The rejection of your claim highlights the emphasis placed on technical validation. The reviewer explicitly states that the claim was rejected because "activity execution and delivery was insufficient" due to the email domain discrepancy [5]. However, this feedback primarily targets the email domain used for consent and surveys. It does not dispute or question the accuracy of the Tenant ID presented in your documentation. This further reinforces that the email domain serves a secondary role, primarily for communication while the Tenant ID remains the core identifier for validating the customer association.
Microsoft Guidelines and Flexibility: While Microsoft's guidelines recommend aligning the email domain with the customer ID for consistency, they also acknowledge the possibility of using alternate emails with proper justification [6, 7]. This flexibility is essential to accommodate scenarios like yours, where customer privacy policies or regional regulations might restrict the use of official email addresses for consent and surveys.
Addressing Concerns and Highlighting Strengths
Based on this understanding, the dispute should focus on clarifying the following:

Technical Validation: Reiterate that your POE documentation consistently displays the correct Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49), matching the one fetched by Microsoft's system based on the domain saco.sa. Highlight specific instances within your documentation where this Tenant ID is clearly visible, reinforcing the accurate association between the claim and the customer's technical environment.
Justification for Email Domain Usage: Provide a comprehensive explanation for using an alternate email domain for customer contact, emphasising the client's request to comply with their internal privacy policies and regional regulations regarding PII. Clearly state that Microsoft's system accepted this alternate email address during the claim creation process, implying an initial acknowledgement of your justification.
Customer Consent Process: Emphasise that the customer successfully granted consent and completed the survey using the specified email address, fulfilling the engagement requirements as outlined in the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide. Highlight that this email address remained consistent throughout the claim process, further demonstrating compliance with Microsoft's customer consent policies.
POE Compliance and Engagement Value: Reiterate that your submitted POE meets all requirements, showcasing the engagement's successful delivery and impact. Highlight the specific activities you performed as part of the Threat Protection engagement and how they addressed the client's security needs.
By addressing these points, you can present a compelling case for reconsideration, emphasising the technical accuracy of your claim and demonstrating compliance with Microsoft's guidelines, while acknowledging and justifying the use of an alternate email domain for customer contact.

New saved note
Further Improved Dispute Write-Up
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to formally dispute the recent rejection of our Proof of Execution (POE) claim related to Saudi Company for Hardware. We believe our submission fully complies with Microsoft's guidelines and requirements, and I would like to clarify our position on the issues raised.

Technical Domain and Tenant ID Validation

From the outset, we provided the domain saco.sa during claim creation. Microsoft's system correctly auto-fetched the tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49. This tenant ID consistently appears throughout our documentation, particularly in the Partner Center claims page and on pages 8 and 12 of our POE documentation. This demonstrates that all technical and engagement activities aligned perfectly with the registered domain and tenant, satisfying the primary validation requirement.

Customer Contact Information Compliance

The customer's preferred email address was used for consent and surveys due to internal privacy policies that restrict the sharing of PII. This alternative contact was accepted by Microsoft at the time of claim creation, signifying initial compliance with Microsoft's procedures. While the MCI Program guidelines don't explicitly state that the consent and survey emails must originate from the same domain as the technical tenant ID, they do allow for the use of alternate emails with proper justification, which we have supplied.

To support this, we can reference the following from the MCI guidelines:

“These details will be used to send the consent request email, customer survey email and partner survey email.” [1] This statement confirms that the email address provided during claim creation is used for all communication related to consent and surveys.
"If the customer ID type in the claim is Tenant ID or domain, and the customer contact email domain entered here does not match that Tenant ID or domain, you will now be prompted to provide a reason why the customer is being contacted with an email whose domain does not match the Tenant ID/domain associated to the claim." [1] This section from the Claims Guide clarifies the process for using an alternate email address and highlights the requirement for justification.
Adherence to Microsoft's Documentation Standards

Our submission aligns with Microsoft’s documentation standards, ensuring sensitive information is appropriately masked per the POE template guidance. Screenshots confirm that all engagements were conducted within the customer's production environment, as mandated. [2, 3]

Request for Reconsideration

Given the above points, we respectfully request a reevaluation of your decision based on:

Confirmation that the technical domain and tenant ID are consistent across all submitted documents.
Justification for utilising an alternate email for customer contact, supported by Microsoft's acknowledgment upon claim creation.
Strict adherence to technical and privacy-related documentation requirements.
We are committed to full compliance and are eager to address any further clarifications or details needed to resolve this matter favourably. Please feel free to reach out for further discussion or clarification.

Thank you for reviewing our position, and we look forward to your reconsideration.

New saved note
Insufficient Justification and the "Action Required" Status
The "Action Required" status in the Microsoft Commerce Incentives (MCI) claim process signifies that your submitted claim requires further clarification or correction before it can be approved. Insufficient justification is a common reason for this status, particularly when your claim involves deviations from standard procedures or presents ambiguities that need addressing.

Understanding the Purpose of "Action Required"
The "Action Required" status serves as a mechanism for Microsoft's POE review team to engage with partners and seek additional information or documentation to validate the claim's legitimacy and compliance with program guidelines. It's an opportunity for you to rectify any shortcomings and potentially secure approval. [1, 2]

Insufficient Justification: A Closer Look
Insufficient justification arises when the POE and accompanying documentation lack the necessary details or evidence to support certain aspects of the claim. This can occur in various scenarios, including:

Deviation from Standard Procedures: As we discussed earlier, using a non-work email address for customer communication is a deviation that requires clear explanation. The reviewer needs assurance that this deviation did not compromise customer identification, data security, or compliance with program policies.
Unclear or Incomplete Information: If the provided information about the engagement activities, customer details, or supporting evidence is vague or incomplete, the reviewer might flag it for further clarification.
Discrepancies in Information: Any inconsistency between the claim details, POE documentation, and other submitted materials can raise concerns and trigger the "Action Required" status.
Lack of Evidence for Impact: For engagements that focus on driving customer usage, the POE must demonstrate how your activities directly contributed to increased usage. Insufficient evidence to support this impact can lead to a request for further justification. [3, 4]
Addressing "Action Required" Due to Insufficient Justification
When your claim is placed in "Action Required" status due to insufficient justification, it's crucial to:

Carefully Review the Comments: The reviewer will typically provide specific comments within the claim outlining the areas that require attention. These comments will guide you on what information or documentation is needed to address the concerns. [2, 5]
Provide Comprehensive and Specific Responses: Address each point raised by the reviewer with clear and detailed explanations.
If it's about the use of a non-work email, clearly state the reasons why it was necessary and the steps taken to mitigate any potential risks.
If information is missing, provide the missing details and ensure they are consistent across all submitted materials.
If the impact of your activities is unclear, present concrete evidence to demonstrate the connection between your work and the customer's increased usage of the relevant Microsoft product or service. [6, 7]
Update Documentation as Necessary: If the reviewer requests additional documentation, ensure it is complete, accurate, and adheres to the latest POE template requirements. [8, 9]
Submit Within the Deadline: Adhere to the timeframe provided for responding to the "Action Required" status. Failure to respond promptly can result in claim expiration and rejection. [10]
Proactive Communication
Maintaining open communication with Microsoft is vital throughout the claim process. Engaging with your Microsoft Partner Development Manager or utilising Partner Center Support can be beneficial for:

Clarifying any doubts regarding the reviewer's comments. [11]
Seeking guidance on providing appropriate justification.
Understanding the specific requirements for each engagement.
Key Takeaways
The "Action Required" status is an opportunity, not a rejection. It signals that your claim has potential but needs further substantiation.
Insufficient justification is a rectifiable issue. By understanding the reviewer's concerns and providing the required information, you can increase your chances of approval.
Proactive communication and timely action are crucial. Engage with Microsoft and respond to requests promptly to avoid claim expiration and maintain a positive working relationship.
Please note that this response is based solely on the information available in the provided sources and our conversation history. While it aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of "insufficient justification" within the context of the "Action Required" status, Microsoft's specific evaluation criteria and internal processes may not be fully encompassed within these sources. For definitive guidance and the most up-to-date information, it's advisable to consult the complete program guidelines and engage directly with your Microsoft Partner Development Manager.

New saved note
Appealing the Claim Rejection: Addressing Concerns and Citing Sources
Your situation involves a claim rejection due to using a customer's Gmail address for communication. While the sources don't explicitly prohibit this, they underscore the need for justification and highlight Microsoft's focus on accurate customer identification. This response aims to equip you with arguments and source references for a compelling appeal.

Addressing Potential Concerns:

The sources don't explicitly forbid using Gmail. However, they stress the importance of accurate customer identification and the need to provide reasons for any deviation from standard procedures. These aspects provide a foundation for addressing potential concerns that might have led to the rejection.

1. Customer Consent and Participation:

Challenge: Microsoft might question the validity of customer consent and survey responses obtained through a Gmail address, potentially raising doubts about the customer's genuine involvement.
Response:Emphasise that the customer actively participated throughout the engagement, despite using Gmail.
Provide evidence of their engagement: screenshots of email exchanges, meeting minutes, or a signed statement from the customer acknowledging their participation.
Highlight that valid consent and survey responses were obtained through Partner Center, demonstrating adherence to Microsoft's procedures.
2. Data Security and Privacy:

Challenge: Sharing sensitive engagement details and POE templates through Gmail could raise data security and privacy concerns for Microsoft.
Response:Reassure Microsoft that you prioritised data protection. Detail the measures taken to secure communication and information shared via Gmail, such as:
Using secure communication channels (e.g., encrypted email services)
Password-protecting sensitive documents
Limiting access to shared information
Refer to source [1], which mentions the need for proof of execution to comply with the Microsoft Privacy Policy, demonstrating your awareness of these requirements.
3. Justification and Documentation:

Challenge: The initial documentation might lack the detailed justification needed to satisfy Microsoft's requirements for using a different domain.
Response:Clearly explain why using the customer's work email wasn't feasible, providing specific context.
Highlight that you proactively documented this reason in the claim comments, fulfilling the requirement mentioned in sources that mandate explanations for certain situations during the claims process.
Cite source [2], which states, "NOTE: Partner Location ID and Customer ID cannot be changed once a claim has been created," indirectly supporting your argument that clear justification for using a different email domain was crucial from the outset.
4. Accuracy and Consistency:

Challenge: Using Gmail deviates from the standard practice of using work emails linked to the customer's Tenant ID or primary domain, potentially raising concerns about inconsistency in customer information.
Response:Acknowledge Microsoft's preference for work emails associated with the customer's primary domain.
Explain that using Gmail, while unconventional, doesn't invalidate the engagement's legitimacy.
Emphasise that all other customer details were accurate and consistent throughout the claim process, ensuring the integrity of the information provided.
Citing Sources to Strengthen Your Argument:

Use the following source references to bolster your case:

Source [3]: This section highlights the use of proof of execution to validate partner involvement, supporting your need to provide evidence of the customer's genuine participation despite using a Gmail address.
Source [4]: This section mentions the requirement for written disclosure and acknowledgement of potential fees for Public Sector customers, demonstrating your understanding of communication and transparency requirements even when using alternate communication channels.
Additional Considerations:

Microsoft's Security and Compliance Focus: While not explicitly mentioned in the sources, Microsoft's commitment to security and compliance suggests they might have reservations about non-work email addresses. Address this by elaborating on the steps you took to secure communication and data shared via Gmail.
Seeking Assistance: Contact your Microsoft Partner Development Manager or support team for specific guidance and insights into appealing claim rejections.
By directly addressing potential concerns, providing robust evidence, and strategically citing the provided sources, you can present a compelling case for claim approval. Maintain professionalism and transparency throughout the appeal process, expressing your willingness to provide any further information needed to resolve the issue.

New saved note
Tenant ID is the primary identifier: The claim correctly uses the validated Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49) fetched from the provided domain (saco.sa), consistently throughout the documentation, proving the link to the client's environment. Email is secondary for communication.
Alternate email justified: The use of a different email domain for consent and surveys was justified due to the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations, and this justification was initially accepted during the "Associate Customer" stage.
POE complete and compliant: The Proof of Execution (POE) includes all required components (Partner/Customer Surveys, Invoice, POE document) and adheres to documentation standards, including masking sensitive information. Screenshots confirm activities within the client's environment, identified by the Tenant ID.
Engagement successfully completed: The Threat Protection engagement was fully completed, including security assessment, vulnerability discovery, and providing recommendations.
Rejection focuses on email, not Tenant ID: The rejection feedback centres on the email domain discrepancy without challenging the Tenant ID's accuracy, further highlighting the primary importance of the Tenant ID for validation.
Outline
Thematic Outline for Disputed Claim Rejection
I. Core Issue: Email Domain Discrepancy and Claim Rejection

A. Problem: Claim rejected due to a mismatch between the customer's email domain used for consent/surveys (Gmail) and the domain associated with their Tenant ID (saco.sa).
B. Microsoft's Position (Implied): Emphasis on accurate customer identification and adherence to standard procedures, raising concerns about the use of non-work email addresses.
C. Partner's Position: The use of Gmail was justified due to the client's specific request based on internal privacy policies and regional regulations concerning PII. The Tenant ID remains the primary identifier, accurately linking the engagement to the client environment. The Gmail address was consistently used and accepted during claim creation.
II. Technical Validation and Claim Accuracy

A. Tenant ID Consistency: The correct Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49) is consistently present throughout the POE documentation, Partner Center claim page, and aligns with the domain (saco.sa) provided during claim creation. This proves the link between the engagement and the customer's environment.
B. Domain Verification: The Microsoft system successfully fetched and validated the Tenant ID based on the provided domain (saco.sa) during claim creation.
C. POE Completeness and Adherence to Standards: All required POE components (Partner/Customer surveys, invoice, documentation with screenshots) are included and adhere to Microsoft's standards, including masking sensitive information.
III. Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain (Gmail)

A. Client Request and Privacy Concerns: The client explicitly requested the use of a non-work email (Gmail) due to internal privacy policies and regional regulations concerning PII. This was documented during the "Associate Customer" stage and accepted by the system.
B. Consistency of Email Address: The same Gmail address was consistently used for all customer communications, including consent and surveys, reinforcing transparency and adherence to the client's preferences.
C. Microsoft Guidelines and Flexibility: Microsoft guidelines recommend, but do not mandate, aligning email domains. Alternate email addresses are permissible with sufficient justification, which was provided and initially accepted. The rejection focuses on the email discrepancy without challenging the Tenant ID's validity.
IV. Engagement Completion and Value Delivered

A. Threat Protection Engagement Fulfilment: All requirements for the Threat Protection engagement were met, including security assessment, vulnerability discovery, and recommendations provided to the client.
B. Customer Consent and Participation: The client actively participated and completed the consent and survey processes using the specified Gmail address.
C. Impact and Value: The engagement successfully addressed the client's security objectives, driving potential purchase/deployment of Microsoft Security products.
V. Request for Reconsideration and Appeal Strategy

A. Re-emphasis on Tenant ID Accuracy and Validation: Underscore that the primary identifier is the Tenant ID, not the email address.
B. Highlight Client's Request and Justification: Reinforce the explanation provided for using the alternate email domain, emphasizing client privacy and initial system acceptance.
C. Reiterate POE Compliance and Engagement Success: Demonstrate adherence to documentation standards and highlight the value delivered to the client.
D. Offer Further Clarification and Documentation: Express willingness to provide any additional information required for a favourable resolution.
E. Address Data Security and Privacy Concerns: Explain measures taken to protect sensitive data when communicating via Gmail.
F. Cite Relevant Sources: Reference specific sections of Microsoft documentation that support the justification for using an alternate email and demonstrate understanding of guidelines.
This outline organises the key arguments and evidence needed to effectively appeal the claim rejection. It allows for a structured and persuasive response, addressing Microsoft's potential concerns while highlighting the validity of the claim.

Study guide
Study Guide: Resolving a Rejected Microsoft Partner Claim
This study guide covers the key concepts and arguments presented in the provided text, which details a dispute process for a rejected Microsoft Partner claim.

Central Questions to Review:

What is the primary identifier for customer validation in the Microsoft Partner program, and why is it more important than the email domain? Focus on the role of the Tenant ID.
How does the provided text justify the use of an alternate email domain for customer consent and surveys? Understand the client's reasoning and how it aligns with Microsoft's guidelines.
What are the core components of a valid Proof of Execution (POE)? List and explain each component.
What is the Threat Protection engagement, and what activities are involved in its completion?
What are the key arguments used to dispute the claim rejection? Identify the supporting evidence provided for each argument.
What is the significance of the initial acceptance of the justification during the "Associate Customer" stage?
How does the text emphasise the secondary nature of the email domain compared to the Tenant ID?
What are CPOR and ARM, and how do they relate to the overall partner program?
What is the importance of disclosing potential fees or commissions to customers, particularly in the public sector?
How does personalising the response strengthen the case for reconsideration?
Glossary of Key Terms and Ideas:

Tenant ID: The primary identifier for a customer's Microsoft environment. Crucial for validating customer association in partner claims. (e.g., 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49)
Email Domain: Used for communication, but secondary to the Tenant ID for customer validation. (e.g., saco.sa)
CPOR (Claiming Partner of Record): The process by which partners claim incentives based on activities performed for customers.
Proof of Execution (POE): Required documentation to validate partner activities and claim incentives. Must be substantive, relevant, and aligned with documented activities. Includes Partner Survey, Customer Survey, Invoice, and POE Document.
Threat Protection Engagement: A specific type of engagement focused on assessing customer security, identifying vulnerabilities, and recommending solutions. Drives customer intent for Microsoft Security products.
Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide: The official guide outlining the requirements for submitting and managing partner claims.
MCI Program Guide: The guide providing details about the specific MCI program within the Microsoft Partner Network.
PII (Personally Identifiable Information): Sensitive information that can be used to identify an individual.
Associate Customer Stage: The stage in the claim process where the partner links their activities to a specific customer.
Automated Referral Management (ARM): System that automatically creates Partner Center referrals based on certain criteria.
Saudi Company for Hardware: The customer involved in the disputed claim.
Claim ID 3206596: The unique identifier for the specific claim being disputed.
Partner ID 6884471: The unique identifier for the partner submitting the claim.
This study guide should help you understand the key arguments and concepts presented in the provided text. Be sure to review the original text alongside this guide for a complete understanding. Remember that understanding the relationship between the Tenant ID, email domain, and the justification provided for using an alternate email domain is critical for comprehending the dispute.

New saved note
Subject: Dispute for Claim ID 3206596 - Threat Protection Engagement with Saudi Company for Hardware

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) [1-3]. Our submission aligns with the Microsoft Partner Center Claims Guide, MCI Program Guide, and POE documentation standards [4-6]. This email clarifies our position and addresses concerns about the customer contact email domain used for consent and surveys [4].

Email Addresses Are Not Primary Identifiers

While email addresses are used for communication, the primary identifier for customer validation is the Tenant ID [7-9]. The Tenant ID accurately represents the customer's environment where engagement activities are conducted [9, 10].

• During claim creation, we provided the domain saco.sa, and the system fetched the Tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49 [11-13]. • This Tenant ID is displayed on the Partner Center claims page and throughout our POE documentation, specifically pages 8 and 12 [11-13]. • This demonstrates the link between the claim and the customer's technical environment [11].

Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain

We acknowledge that the customer consent and survey emails were sent to a different domain than the customer ID [14]. This was at the client's request to comply with their internal privacy policies and regional regulations regarding PII [14-16]. The client requested not to use their work email for consent or survey communications [14].

• The email address used for consent and the survey is consistent with the customer contact information provided during claim creation [17, 18]. • This consistent use of the same email address respects the client's preferences, their privacy requirements, and ensures transparency [17].

While Microsoft recommends aligning email domains for consistency, the MCI Program Guide and POE documentation requirements do not explicitly mandate this alignment [19, 20].

• Alternate email addresses are acceptable with proper justification, as long as the Tenant ID validation remains intact [15, 19-21]. • We provided justification during the "Associate Customer" stage, and the Partner Center system accepted our explanation [16, 19]. • This initial acceptance suggests compliance with Microsoft's guidelines [19].

The rejection feedback focuses on the email domain discrepancy and does not challenge the accuracy of the Tenant ID [22]. This indicates the email domain's secondary function for communication, while the Tenant ID remains crucial for validating customer association [22].

Engagement Completion and POE Compliance

The Threat Protection engagement was completed following all requirements [23, 24]. We conducted a security assessment, discovered threats and vulnerabilities, and provided recommendations [23].

Our POE includes all required components:

Partner Survey: Completed [25]
Customer Survey: Completed [26]
Invoice in USD: Uploaded [27]
POE document: Uploaded, demonstrating engagement activities and results, including screenshots confirming activities within the client's environment, identified by the Tenant ID [27-29].
Our submission meets all documentation standards, masking sensitive information appropriately [28-30].

Request for Reconsideration

We request you reconsider the rejection of our claim based on:

Technical Validation: The Tenant ID (1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49) is consistent across all documentation [31-33].
Justification for Email Domain Usage: A clear justification was provided and accepted during claim creation for using an alternate email domain based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The same email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion [34-36].
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 and includes all necessary documentation [23, 37-41].
We are committed to upholding Microsoft's standards and are available to provide any further clarification or documentation [42, 43].

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Company]

[Your Partner ID]

New saved note
Addressing Claim Rejection Based on Email Domain Discrepancy
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

This message formally disputes the recent 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.

Email Addresses Are Not Primary Identifiers for Customer Validation
It is crucial to recognise 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.

Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain
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.

Successfully Completed Engagement and Submitted POE
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. [1]
Customer Survey: Completed. [2]
Invoice in USD: Uploaded, matching the agreed payout amount for the engagement. [3]
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. [4, 5]
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. [6, 7]
Justification for Email Domain Usage: A clear justification was provided and accepted during claim creation for using an alternate email domain for customer contact based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The same email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion. [8-10]
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. [11, 12]
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] [7]

New saved note
Addressing Claim Rejection Based on Email Domain Discrepancy
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and the MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

This message formally disputes the recent 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.

Email Addresses Are Not Primary Identifiers for Customer Validation
It is crucial to recognise 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.

Justification for Using an Alternate Email Domain
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.

Successfully Completed Engagement and Submitted POE
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. [1]
Customer Survey: Completed. [2]
Invoice in USD: Uploaded, matching the agreed payout amount for the engagement. [3]
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. [4, 5]
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. [6, 7]
Justification for Email Domain Usage: A clear justification was provided and accepted during claim creation for using an alternate email domain for customer contact based on the client's PII protection policies and regional regulations. The same email address was consistently used for customer consent and survey completion. [8-10]
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. [11, 12]
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] [7]