How do you handle disputed meetings that don't meet qualification criteria?

Cormac Repman
4 hours ago
3 min read

We handle disputes with a "pay first, review if needed" model. Qualified meetings automatically process within 48 hours. If you believe a meeting missed your criteria, you can flag it with the call recording link so we can review, learn, and adjust our qualification process going forward.

Why We Default to Payment

This approach reflects our confidence in our qualification process, but it also recognizes reality: sometimes interpretations differ. Rather than create friction by holding payment pending 10-day reviews or requiring your team to prove a negative, we trust the process and let you audit retroactively if needed.

You're running a business. You don't want to chase us about whether a meeting counted. You want predictable payout processing so you can focus on pipeline.

The 48-Hour Guarantee

When we submit a meeting as qualified, payment processes automatically within two business days. No approval queue. No waiting for your team to log into a portal and manually confirm. This matters when you're planning cash flow or reporting results to leadership.

The 48-hour window gives your team time to review the call on your own schedule. If everything matches your criteria, great. If it doesn't, you have time to reach out.

How Disputes Actually Work

Here's the process if a meeting doesn't feel right:

You reply with the call recording link (usually from your Zoom or calendar system). We review the recording against your qualification criteria. We look for the signals we agreed to target: decision-maker titles, company size, industry fit, budget authority, timeframe, whatever we scoped.

If we missed the mark, we own it. We analyze why (poor targeting, wrong research data, criteria misunderstanding) and tighten our process. We don't argue. Our incentive is to send you better meetings next month.

If we believe the meeting actually qualified based on what was said on the call, we explain what we heard. This happens less often than you'd think, but it does happen.

Common Dispute Scenarios

A prospect claimed they had budget, but it's already allocated. They didn't actually have authority to approve new spend this year.

A meeting felt like it was 20% business, 80% prospect fishing for free consulting. No real buying intent.

The prospect title was correct, but they were actually more operational than strategic. Not a real decision-maker for the solution.

We send you meetings with people in the right titles at companies in your target market who express buying intent in our first conversation. Some slip through. We adjust.

Why This Matters for Both Sides

From your perspective, you get paid meetings with minimal administrative overhead. No forms to fill. No proof-of-attendance videos. No back-and-forth verification emails.

From our perspective, this model only works if we're genuinely good at qualification. If we shipped unqualified meetings constantly, disputes would pile up and the model would collapse. We'd be out of business. So we're motivated to be precise.

The 48-hour auto-payout also prevents scope creep. We don't want clients moving goalposts after the meeting to retroactively disqualify it. The recording exists. The conversation is there. Either your criteria were met or they weren't.

Bottom Line

You don't pay for meetings that miss your criteria. But you also don't wait around for us to chase approvals or defend every single call. We process on a trust-but-verify basis. That's how we keep things moving at scale.

Questions about how this works for your specific use case?

Book a call with us to walk through your criteria and how we'd qualify meetings.