help build a compelling dispute case without being overly aggressive, structure thoughts in a better way Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,

Kindly note that the domain provided to Microsoft at the time of claim creation was saco.sa. Microsoft auto fetched the tenant id of associated domain based on the same which was provided. At the time of claim creation itself, when prompted for client details, we have given the very same email id from the very beginning. This email id provided to Microsoft is the client's preferred email address and is not a reflection of the domain or the tenant on which the engagement has been delivered. 

We have shared the email id as provided by the client for consent and survey, they cited internal policies on PII protection as reason for same, sharing their work email directly disclosed the PII. Furthermore, there is no guideline which mandates customer domain specific email is a must to be used for consents and surveys in the MCI Program guidelines. It is however mandated, that all screenshots captured must match the primary customer id provided at time of claim creation. 

In this case, this is a perfect match.

We are disputing your rejection of our Proof of Execution (POE) claim for this engagement and sharing the reason for survey and consent email domain mismatch herewith:

1. We have shared the email id as provided by the client for consent and survey, they cited internal policies on PII protection as reason for same, sharing their work email directly disclosed the PII. As per KSA's regulations, we cannot disclose PII we do not have consent for.
2. Adding to point 1, we are also in compliance with Microsoft's POE documentation requirements (despite not sharing PII containing domain) - The POE template (slide 2) states that screenshots with content where real usernames and/or device names are present, can have that information blurred as the last point with the template. This slide is a hidden slide in the poe template, however, you should be able to see the same within the ppt PoE template available to partners.
3. As for our technical PoE, it has been delivered fully compliant with Microsoft's guidelines. We have appropriately masked sensitive information while maintaining necessary technical validation as per the guidelines. 

Kindly note that:
1. The claim id which appears on this claims page is 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49. 
2. The same id appears both on page 8 and page 12 of our submitted documentation within the screenshots from customer environment.
3. The program requirements require engagement delivery in the production environment of the customer. Technical Validation of the Engagement. The tenant ID match on this claims page with the POE documentation page is a conclusive proof all work was performed in SAUDI COMPANY FOR HARDWARE's production environment

Microsoft Guidelines Compliance:
Our submission follows Microsoft's POE documentation requirements while respecting the customer's privacy preferences. Upon a deep review of the program guide, Microsoft allows claims creation and processing on an alternate email id with justification provided alongside. Considering the only reason provided is the domain of the email being different to the domain in the engagement POE, we request approval based on the core facts that:

1. Microsoft allows creation of claims with alternate email with justification, which has been provided as above.
2. Tenant ID on the claims page of partner center (fetched by system as per domain entered at time of claim creation) must be a match to the tenant ID in the provided documentation, which is also a match.
3. 
We have properly documented the technical implementation
Sensitive information has been masked in accordance with the POE template guidance
The engagement was fully delivered in the production environment as required

We request reconsideration of this rejection based on:

SAUDI COMPANY FOR HARDWARE's specific privacy requirements
Clear technical verification through tenant ID
Full compliance with documentation guidelines

We are available to discuss SAUDI COMPANY FOR HARDWARE's requirements in more detail if needed. 
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,
We are writing to formally dispute the rejection of this claim. 

Domain and Technical Validation
1.	At claim creation: 
o	Domain provided: saco.sa
o	Microsoft auto-fetched tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49
o	This tenant ID appears consistently across: 
	Partner Center claims page
	POE documentation (pages 8 and 12)
	All technical implementation screenshots
2.	Critical Point: 
o	The domain and tenant ID in technical documentation MATCH exactly with what was provided at claim creation
o	This is the primary technical validation requirement for POE approval
Customer Contact Information vs Technical Domain
1.	Microsoft's Process: 
o	Customer contact details are requested separately for consent and survey communications
o	These contact details are distinct from the technical domain validation
o	Microsoft's system accepted our claim with these contact details from day one
2.	Technical Requirements: 
o	Program mandates that technical implementation must match the registered domain/tenant
o	Our POE fully complies with this requirement
o	All screenshots show work performed in correct production environment
Request for Action
We request reconsideration as:
1.	Technical domain and tenant ID match perfectly across all documentation
2.	Customer contact information was accepted by Microsoft at claim creation
3.	There is no program requirement mandating that survey/consent emails must use the technical domain
Available for any clarification needed.
 
Dear <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> and MCI Engagements - POE Review Team,
We are writing to dispute this claim rejection. 

As you mentioned, two very specific issues have led to this claim being rejected:

1.	"Customer Consent sent to a domain that does not belong to the customer ID listed in the claim details"
2.	"Customer Survey sent to a domain that does not belong to the customer ID listed in the claim details"

These concerns appear to conflate two separate aspects of this claim:

1.	Technical Domain Validation
________________________________________
•	At claim creation, we provided domain: saco.sa
•	Microsoft's system auto-fetched tenant ID: 1bd081db-9c51-4dac-aba4-b9044ca5fa49
•	This tenant ID appears consistently in: 
o	Partner Center claims page
o	All technical implementation screenshots
o	POE documentation pages 8 and 12

2.	Customer Contact Information
________________________________________
•	Microsoft's claim creation process starts with nominating a specific domain or tenant ID as the primary customer ID, in the production environment for which, the engagement would be delivered.
•	Customer contact details for consent and survey are asked for in the third stage.
•	In the aspects of this specific claim, the very same contact details were provided and accepted by Microsoft's automated system at the time of initial claim creation, the customer has consented to and completed surveys with the same email ID.
•	How was this email accepted by Microsoft's system on day one?
•	We have thoroughly reviewed the program guide, and spoken to stakeholders at Microsoft directly as well. There is no mandate that consent/survey emails must use the domain or tenant id provided as customer id during time of claim creation as the contact email id.

Key Validation Point
As per the delivery guides, the primary technical requirement is that the domain and tenant ID in the PoE documentation must match what was registered as the “Customer ID” at time of claim creation - which they do perfectly in our submission.
Request for Reconsideration
We request approval based on:
1.	Perfect match of technical domain and tenant ID across all documentation
2.	Microsoft's prior acceptance of these contact details at claim creation
3.	Full compliance with all technical implementation requirements
Available for any additional clarification needed.

Frame your response to:
Dear Partner, We are writing to inform you that a decision has been made in relation to your Proof of Execution (POE) review. We determined your claim details show that activity execution and delivery was insufficient. The following specific issues were identified that led to this decision: Customer Consent sent to a domain that does not belong to the customer ID listed in the claim details Customer Survey sent to a domain that does not belong to the customer ID listed in the claim details This claim has been rejected. If you wish to dispute this rejection action, the Dispute function will be available to you in this claim interface for 30 calendar days after this rejection action is taken. In order to dispute, please do the following: i. Click Dispute. ii. Update your POE documentation to resolve all issues identified during original review. iii. Add comments as needed. iv. Click Submit. v. If your dispute is not submitted within 30 days of rejection, it will expire. Once you click Submit, your disputed claim will be reviewed and responded to within 5 calendar days of re-submittal to review queue. POE review standards can be reviewed in the POE template for this workshop as well as in the Partner Center Incentive Guide and MCI Engagements Training Guide. § MCI Program Guide available for download here: http://aka.ms/incentivesguide § Partners and internal Microsoft team members can review step-by-step guidance on claims by downloading https://aka.ms/MCIPartnerActivitiesClaimsGuide Best regards, <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> MCI Engagements - POE Review Team