Skip to main content
Answer “why did this pay X?” with a repeatable investigation flow: confirm the deal/period, confirm plan selection, confirm effective inputs, then explain the gate/status.

When to use this

  • A rep asks “why is this amount different than expected?”
  • A deal moved between periods or changed status unexpectedly.
  • You need an audit-friendly explanation for Finance/Payroll.

The investigation flow

  1. Confirm you’re looking at the right thing
    • Deal, participant, and period (especially if the deal is split or has multiple participants).
  2. Confirm plan selection
    • In Calculation → Plan Selection, confirm which plan/version was selected and why.
  3. Confirm timing
    • In Calculation → Anchor Date, confirm which date anchored the deal to the period.
  4. Confirm effective inputs
    • In Calculation → Build Input, compare source vs effective values (overrides can change outcomes).
  5. Confirm execution
    • In Calculation → Execution, confirm the base amount, rate, tiers/accelerators, and any derived variables.
  6. Confirm gates/status
    • In Calculation → Gates, confirm whether a gate is blocking payout (Waiting) or whether the deal is eligible.

How to write the explanation (template)

  • Selected plan/version: <plan name> (approved/pending; why it was selected)
  • Anchor date & period: <date><period>
  • Key inputs (effective): <amount>, <deal type>, <currency>, <any critical flags>
  • Rate/base logic: <base> × <rate> (include tier/accelerator triggers if present)
  • Status/gate: <earned/pending/waiting/paid> (what is missing, if Waiting)

What to capture as evidence

  • A screenshot (or notes) of Plan Selection, Build Input, and Gates.
  • Any overrides applied (what field, what changed, and why).
  • A link to the deal discussion thread with the final explanation.