Best for
- Teams using partner MDF or co-funded campaigns
- Alliances disputing account ownership or pipeline influence
- Partner marketers assembling reimbursement evidence manually
Govern joint campaign responsibilities, shared accounts, MDF budgets, eligible expenses, CRM tracking, partner-assisted journeys, reimbursement evidence, disputes, and post-campaign decisions.
A joint partner campaign control system with account overlap, budget and expense evidence, deliverables, CRM mappings, pipeline classes, reimbursement packets, reviews, and archived decisions.
Quick view
Check the audience, core tools, and access before you start the detailed steps.
Best for
Core tools
4 tools used across the workflow.
Access
Preview the open steps, then unlock the remaining implementation details and prompts.
Why this works
Partner campaigns create two simultaneous systems of accountability: business performance and financial eligibility. This workflow defines ownership and attribution before launch, snapshots overlap accounts, and collects proof at the expense and deliverable level while activity occurs. Sourced, influenced, and partner-assisted pipeline remain distinct, reducing both reporting inflation and reimbursement scramble.
Expected results
Campaign operations
8-14 hours saved per campaign
Linked budgets, deliverables, proof, CRM evidence, and packet checks reduce manual reconciliation and late document collection.
MDF recovery
Expense-level evidence completeness
Every reimbursement line carries approval, invoice, payment, proof of performance, dates, and policy context.
Pipeline clarity
Sourced, influenced, and partner-assisted separated
Temporal and association rules prevent every overlap or touch from being counted as partner-sourced.
Partner accountability
Responsibilities and deviations recorded
Both parties can see owners, acceptance conditions, data limits, disputes, and postmortem decisions.
Step-by-step workflow
The first 2 steps are open. Pro unlocks the remaining steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and implementation details.
60-90 min
60-90 min
Create a joint charter covering campaign objective, partners, eligible markets, account scope, offer, lead and opportunity ownership, MDF rules, contribution expectations, approval authority, reimbursement deadline, and reporting cadence. Define sourced, influenced, and partner-assisted pipeline separately. Name the campaign owner at each organization and one finance or alliance approver. Record data-sharing limits and dispute resolution. Record the operation against stable identifiers such as joint_campaign_id, partner_id, account_id, mdf_request_id, expense_id, preserve the raw source reference and capture time, and write any transformation or decision into the system’s change history rather than replacing the prior value. Before the step is marked complete, both partner owners approve targeting and deliverables while the budget owner validates eligibility, proof, attribution labels, and reimbursement evidence; if that check fails, hold ineligible expenses, disputed ownership, unreconciled leads, unsupported influence claims, missing proof, and records outside the partner agreement period. Write down the decision criteria, owner, required inputs, and what is deliberately out of scope so the rest of the workflow does not drift.
A signed partner campaign and MDF operating contract.
Resolve lead ownership and attribution before the campaign launches. Waiting until pipeline appears turns reporting into a negotiation.
2-3 hours
2-3 hours
Build Airtable tables for Partners, Campaigns, Shared Accounts, MDF Budgets, Expenses, Deliverables, Approvals, Leads, Opportunities, Evidence, Reimbursements, Decisions, and Postmortems. Use campaign and partner IDs. Add approved amount, eligible category, requested amount, committed and actual dates, invoice, proof of performance, owner, approval, customer status, account overlap, opportunity timing, and attribution class. Preserve rejected expenses and reasons. Create a dedicated Claude Project named `partner-mdf-comarketing-roi-control-ops` with `instructions.md`, `field-dictionary.json`, `source-register.csv`, `review-rubric.md`, `approved-examples.md`, and `changelog.md`; assign a named owner and use `vYYYY.MM` releases. Refresh the named source exports on the workflow cadence, archive superseded inputs by source ID and date, and review instructions, examples, permissions, and maintenance needs quarterly. Run this template in the workflow’s persistent Claude Project after attaching or linking the approved source records named for this step. Ask for a working draft with named sections, assumptions, gaps, and review flags rather than treating the first AI answer as final.
A joint campaign operating system for budget, deliverables, accounts, evidence, and reimbursement.
Pro workflow preview
Previewing 2 of 13 steps
Get the remaining 11 steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and ongoing workflow and prompt releases.
$9/month
Keep marketing performance evidence separate from financial proof. A campaign can perform well while an expense remains ineligible for reimbursement.
ROLE
You are the governed analysis and operations assistant supporting the partner marketing lead and alliance finance owner. You are working inside the partner MDF, co-marketing spend, and pipeline evidence control, where traceability, stable identifiers, and human authority matter more than producing a polished but unsupported answer.
OBJECTIVE
Complete workflow step 2, “Create the MDF, activity, and evidence schema,” and produce this operational outcome: A joint campaign operating system for budget, deliverables, accounts, evidence, and reimbursement. The result must be immediately usable by the named operator without inventing records, silently changing approved state, or obscuring uncertainty.
INPUTS
1. SOURCE RECORDS: {{create_the_mdf_activity_and_evidence_schema_source_records}}
2. FIELD DICTIONARY AND ALLOWED VALUES: {{create_the_mdf_activity_and_evidence_schema_field_dictionary}}
3. OPERATING, PERMISSION, AND DECISION RULES: {{create_the_mdf_activity_and_evidence_schema_operating_rules}}
4. APPROVAL CONTEXT, OWNERS, AND DEADLINES: {{create_the_mdf_activity_and_evidence_schema_approval_context}}
5. PRIOR VERSION, SNAPSHOT, OR CURRENT STATE: {{create_the_mdf_activity_and_evidence_schema_prior_version_or_state}}
Authoritative evidence may include Crossbeam overlap exports, HubSpot campaign and opportunity records, approved budgets, invoices, proof of performance, and partner review decisions.
WORK TO PERFORM
1. Execute the specific job described by “Create the MDF, activity, and evidence schema”; do not broaden the task into a generic strategy exercise.
2. Use the canonical field names and IDs supplied in the inputs, especially joint_campaign_id, partner_id, account_id, mdf_request_id, expense_id, eligibility_status.
3. Separate observed facts, operator-entered decisions, calculations, and model inferences so reviewers can trace how each conclusion was produced.
4. Return records that can be copied into the partner MDF, co-marketing spend, and pipeline evidence control without renaming identifiers or collapsing one-to-many relationships.
5. Define field type, required status, allowed values, source of truth, owner, refresh rule, and validation rule for every proposed field.
6. Identify duplicates, conflicts, stale records, missing IDs, permission problems, and records that must be held for human resolution.
7. Produce a compact review summary explaining what changed, what did not change, what remains uncertain, and what the operator should do next.
OUTPUT SCHEMA
Return valid JSON only, using this exact top-level structure:
{
"workflow_slug": "partner-mdf-comarketing-roi-control",
"step_number": 2,
"step_title": "Create the MDF, activity, and evidence schema",
"run_status": "pass|warning|hold|fail",
"source_records": [
{"source_id": "string", "source_type": "string", "captured_at": "ISO-8601|null", "authoritative": true, "notes": "string|null"}
],
"records": [
{"joint_campaign_id": "value|null", "partner_id": "value|null", "account_id": "value|null", "mdf_request_id": "value|null", "expense_id": "value|null", "eligibility_status": "value|null", "deliverable_id": "value|null", "evidence_source_ids": ["string"], "confidence": "high|medium|low", "review_status": "approved|needs-review|held"}
],
"exceptions": [
{"record_id": "string|null", "exception_type": "string", "severity": "low|medium|high|critical", "evidence": "string", "owner": "string", "required_action": "string"}
],
"changes_from_prior_state": [
{"record_id": "string", "field": "string", "prior_value": "value|null", "proposed_value": "value|null", "reason": "string", "source_ids": ["string"]}
],
"review_summary": {"facts": ["string"], "inferences": ["string"], "open_questions": ["string"], "next_actions": [{"action": "string", "owner": "string", "due_date": "YYYY-MM-DD|null"}]},
"qa": {"schema_valid": true, "ids_preserved": true, "evidence_complete": true, "human_approval_required": true}
}
GUARDRAILS
- Treat the supplied field dictionary, permissions, approval matrix, and prior approved state as binding.
- Do not create facts, sources, IDs, dates, metrics, quotes, customer permissions, or approvals that are not present in the inputs.
- Do not perform, simulate, or claim an external write; return proposed records or actions for the governed workflow to apply.
- Do not collapse conflicting evidence into a single confident statement. Preserve the conflict and identify the required owner.
- hold ineligible expenses, disputed ownership, unreconciled leads, unsupported influence claims, missing proof, and records outside the partner agreement period.
EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS
Every material claim, classification, score, recommendation, mutation, or exception must reference one or more supplied source IDs. Keep raw evidence distinct from derived analysis, retain capture dates when provided, and mark evidence as stale when it falls outside the approved refresh window. A record without adequate evidence must be returned with review_status “held,” not completed through guesswork.
UNCERTAINTY HANDLING
Use high confidence only when authoritative sources agree and the required identifiers are present. Use medium confidence when the evidence is credible but incomplete or indirect. Use low confidence when evidence is sparse, stale, inferred, or contradictory, and state the exact missing information that would change the result. When uncertainty could trigger an external action, financial commitment, customer communication, publication, suppression, or system mutation, return run_status “hold.”
HUMAN REVIEW
The partner marketing lead and alliance finance owner must review the JSON before any state change or external action. The approval gate is: both partner owners approve targeting and deliverables while the budget owner validates eligibility, proof, attribution labels, and reimbursement evidence. The reviewer must verify source IDs, field mappings, permission scope, exception handling, and the proposed next action; record the reviewer, timestamp, disposition, and any edits in the workflow’s mutation or decision log.Related workflows
Continue with workflows that share a similar GTM motion, category, or tool stack.
A stateful event outreach agent with Gmail and Calendar IDs, reply classes, suppressions, reviewed drafts, verified meetings, exception SLAs, audit logs, and a clean shutdown process.
An interactive dashboard with target-account penetration, company reach, campaign efficiency, CRM journeys, sourced and influenced pipeline, data-quality flags, and action queues.
A governed evidence graph and opportunity-specific seller arsenal with approved proof, usage guidance, buyer-facing assets, permission controls, and a coverage feedback loop.