---
title: "Employee referral program template: handoffs and unresolved cases"
canonical: https://metix.ai/blog/employee-referral-program-template
published: 2026-11-02
updated: 2026-11-02
author: "Metix AI"
---

# Employee referral program template: handoffs and unresolved cases

Canonical: https://metix.ai/blog/employee-referral-program-template

Give each referral a receiving owner and a next check. Keep disputed credit and incentive decisions visible until the company resolves them.

Metix AI editorial team

The short version

Start from one approved role and a company-approved program version. Record each submission, acknowledge receipt, and name who resolves duplicate or existing-record questions. The downloadable worksheet and local checker preserve all ten fictional submissions without choosing a winner or sending a message.

Decision guide

## What happens after an employee refers someone?

1. ### Receive the submission

   Keep a submission ID, role and receiving owner together.

2. ### Expose the unresolved case

   Check identity mapping, permission and existing records before deciding.

3. ### Record the next action

   Name the decision owner and a company-chosen follow-up date.

The kit does not approve contact, determine referral credit or calculate a reward. Opaque IDs are pseudonymous references, not proof of anonymity.

For employers launching referrals for an approved opening. This is Metix AI editorial work. Sources and product scope checked November 2, 2026. Every submission in the worked example is invented.

## Give every referral a clear next owner

An employee referral program needs a route from an employee's recommendation to a recorded hiring review. Decide who receives the submission, how receipt is acknowledged and who handles an unresolved claim before asking people for names. The receiving recruiter needs a submission ID and a next check date even when the program offers no reward.

[Download the editable employee referral program template](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-program-template.md) or [the complete referral kit (ZIP)](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-kit.zip). The kit contains a launch worksheet, a blank submission log, ten fictional submissions, expected results, a local Python checker, a field dictionary and a manual decision log. You can use it with your own approved records and spreadsheet, without a Metix account.

Start with one approved role and the [hiring brief](https://metix.ai/blog/hiring-brief-template) that defines its requirements. Give employees enough role information to decide whether to make an introduction: the work, location and work model, essential evidence and the responsible recruiting contact. Keep that brief version visible when the role changes.

**Complete these company decisions before publishing the invitation**

| Decision | What to record | Who must be able to answer |
| - | - | - |
| Role and participation | Included role IDs, current brief, participating groups and any exclusions. | Program owner and hiring owner. |
| Submission and contact | Accepted route, required information and the actual permission-to-share process. | Receiving owner and authorized records contact. |
| Receipt and follow-up | Company-chosen acknowledgement target, next check date and backup owner. | The person responsible for this submission. |
| Existing or duplicate record | Approved rule, evidence to inspect and dispute route. | The named decision owner. |
| Incentive, if any | Approved terms, qualifying event, payment responsibility and policy version. | The company's responsible policy and payroll reviewers. |

The downloadable worksheet leaves incentive amounts, eligible groups, lookback periods and duplicate rules open. A value copied from another employer's policy is still a decision your company has to approve. Leave an unresolved item marked pending instead of making the document look finished.

## Write the rule before the disputed submission arrives

[Workable's policy template](https://resources.workable.com/employee-referral-program-policy) shows the kinds of choices a company can document, including participation, existing applications, duplicate referrals and reward conditions. Its sample amounts and first-referrer rule belong to that example. They are not defaults in this kit.

List the cases the program owner will need to resolve: two employees referring one person for one role, a candidate already in the record system, a referral for a role that later closes, or someone considered for a different opening. Decide which version of the rules applies when the program changes. Keep the original submissions linked to the resolution.

A software source label and an approved incentive decision are separate records. [Greenhouse's referral FAQ](https://support.greenhouse.io/hc/en-us/articles/12320251521435-Referrals-FAQ) directs questions about program incentives and payouts to the employer's own contacts. That is a useful responsibility boundary: the person reading a status needs to know who can decide the underlying program question.

Do not use the referrer's confidence as a substitute for evidence against the role. Apply the company's approved assessment process and record what remains unknown about the candidate. Use the [interview scorecard](https://tools.metix.ai/interview-scorecard) for employer assessment; this kit records the referral handoff.

## Acknowledge receipt without implying a reward

A receipt tells an employee that the submission reached someone. It does not establish eligibility, permission to contact the candidate or the outcome of a hiring review. Make those stages visible in the wording rather than relying on an ambiguous label such as accepted.

> We received submission \[ID] for \[role]. \[Owner] will check \[next task] by \[date/timezone]. This message confirms receipt. Any referral eligibility or reward decision follows \[approved policy version] and is handled by \[decision owner].

The worksheet includes an internal launch announcement and a fuller receipt you can edit. Replace the placeholders with decisions the team can actually carry out. Choose an acknowledgement target the receiving owner can support; this guide establishes no universal number of hours or business days.

Define what the employee may see about progress. Keep assessment notes and private candidate material in the appropriate hiring records. If a candidate changes their mind or corrects a detail, name the authorized contact who will update the record and explain what can be shared with the referring employee.

## Keep submissions, people and roles distinct

One row in the log is one referral submission for one role. A second submission receives its own submission ID, even when it appears to concern the same person. That preserves the history the program owner may need to review.

The checker groups exact matches of `person_key` and `role_id`. DEMO01 and DEMO02 both refer P01 for ROLE-A, so both rows receive a duplicate flag. DEMO03 refers P01 for ROLE-B, so it is a different person/role pair. The first submission is not automatically the winner, and the second row is not discarded.

Use stable opaque identifiers instead of names and contact details in this review file. Keep the identity mapping and source records in the employer's authorized system. Record the policy version, receiving owner, actual acknowledgement date and next follow-up date alongside each submission.

Opaque IDs are pseudonymous references, not an anonymity guarantee. The script cannot recognize one person under two different IDs, or separate two people accidentally assigned the same ID. Reconcile identity in the underlying records before interpreting a duplicate. A matching name alone is not enough.

Permission to share details or contact someone needs its own check. The example accepts yes, no or unknown for `contact_permission`. Both no and unknown produce a hold for the responsible owner to investigate. A yes in the file records what the team entered; the checker cannot verify the underlying permission or authorize contact. A prior candidate record is another question: yes produces a policy review, while unknown asks someone to check the existing records.

## Run the ten-case handoff check

Download [the local Python checker](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-review.py) and [the fictional example CSV](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-example.csv) into one folder. Run:

```
python3 employee-referral-review.py employee-referral-example.csv --as-of 2026-11-02 > review.csv
```

Compare review\.csv with [the expected output](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-expected.csv). To use your own data, start with [the blank CSV header](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-log-template.csv) and read [the field dictionary and method](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-method.md). The files can also be reviewed in a spreadsheet without running Python.

**What to inspect at the November 2 cutoff; all records invented**

| Submission | Record difference | Review result |
| - | - | - |
| DEMO01 / DEMO02 | Same P01, same ROLE-A, different referrers. | Both flagged; no automatic winner. DEMO02 also lacks a receipt and is due today. |
| DEMO03 | P01, different ROLE-B. | Separate person/role pair, one submission. |
| DEMO04 | Contact permission unknown; no recorded receipt. | Permission hold; next check overdue. |
| DEMO05 | Contact permission no. | Permission hold; receipt missing; check due today. |
| DEMO06 | A prior record is known. | Company policy review; no eligibility conclusion. |
| DEMO07 | Prior-record status unknown. | Check the underlying records. |
| DEMO08 | No owner, receipt or follow-up date. | All three gaps remain visible; follow-up timing unknown. |
| DEMO09 | Receipt exists; next check was November 1. | Follow-up overdue despite no other listed flag. |
| DEMO10 | Receipt and owner recorded; next check November 2. | Due today; no other listed flag. |

Use one documented company timezone before assigning calendar dates. The checker marks a chosen follow-up date before the reporting date overdue, the same date due\_today and a later date scheduled. A blank date stays unknown. It does not calculate hours, business-day calendars or a universal response SLA. Move the next-check date only after recording what actually happened.

The checker validates the whole input before emitting a report. A repeated submission ID is an export problem, while two distinct submissions for the same person and role remain visible for review. Invalid or future submission dates, impossible receipt dates, malformed columns and unsafe identifiers reject the entire file.

The output keeps all input rows. `review_flags` identifies the questions that need attention, and `followup_status` compares the chosen next-check date with the reporting date. Neither column is a candidate score, a hiring decision or an approved reward. The flag none means no listed question was detected in those input fields. DEMO09 still has an overdue follow-up, and the underlying permission, identity and policy records still need to be trustworthy.

## Close the question in a manual decision record

Use [the editable decision log](https://metix.ai/assets/resources/employee-referral-decisions.csv) to record the submission IDs, issue, applicable policy version, responsible decision owner and review date. When the owner decides, add the actual decision and reason instead of replacing the original submission history.

The example decision log leaves the DEMO01/DEMO02 dispute pending. The team still has to inspect its own approved rule and records. Nothing in the checker determines an employee's entitlement or approves a payout.

Before launch, run the examples through the people who will receive, acknowledge and resolve them. Confirm where updates are recorded and which messages are sent. Ask the receiving owner to locate the original submission, the acknowledgement and the next check date. Then ask the decision owner to locate the applicable rule and explain who will record the unresolved case.

## Add another sourcing channel only when the role needs it

Keep referral submission, attribution, incentives and recruiting records in the employer's chosen system. This download demonstrates a local review method, not a Metix referral feature, import or ATS integration. It does not collect employee networks or send messages.

If the employee network does not cover an approved role and you want another sourcing channel, keep the same role requirements and evidence standard. In the [current Metix workflow](https://metix.ai/features/ai-recruiter), the employer defines the role, reviews matching evidence and approves outreach; Mira runs sourcing through interest screening and interview booking. Your team keeps interviews and the hiring decision.

If the immediate task is tracking employee submissions or administering rewards, use the company's referral and record systems. Additional sourcing does not resolve a disputed referral claim. Self-serve plans do not include Metix staff reviewing shortlists. Staff-run Delivery is a separate service quoted on a demo.

### Use one approved hiring brief

For additional sourcing, define the role, review the evidence and approve outreach before it sends.

[Discuss separately quoted Delivery](https://book.metix.ai/?campaign=employee-referral-program-template&source=site&cta=delivery)

### What should an employee referral program template include?

Record the included roles and brief version, participating groups, submission route, permission-to-share process, receiving owner, acknowledgement target and follow-up dates. Keep incentive terms, existing-record rules, duplicate handling and dispute ownership tied to a company-approved policy version.

### Who gets credit when two employees refer the same candidate?

The company-approved program rule and responsible decision owner must resolve that case. The local checker flags both same-person, same-role submissions and preserves the records; it does not choose the earliest row as a winner or approve a reward.

### Can I contact a referral when permission is unknown?

The example marks no or unknown contact permission as a hold for the responsible owner to review. A yes entered in the file is not proof of permission. Confirm the actual permission and authorized contact route in your company records before acting.

### Does the review kit calculate referral bonuses or send updates?

No. It reads a local CSV and writes a review CSV. It flags duplicate person/role pairs, missing owners or acknowledgements, permission holds, prior-record questions and follow-up dates. Incentives, messages, identity verification and final decisions remain with the employer.

### Does Metix manage employee referral programs?

This guide does not demonstrate a Metix referral administration feature, employee-network import or ATS integration. Metix fits an approved role needing additional sourcing through outreach, interest screening and booking. Employers keep referral records, incentive decisions, interviews and hiring decisions; staff-run Delivery is separately quoted.

About the editorial team

## [Metix AI editorial team](https://metix.ai/about)

Research & buying guides

The Metix AI editorial team writes hiring guides and product comparisons. We publish source dates, distinguish vendor claims from observations, and keep worked examples separate from measured outcomes. Metix AI also sells recruiting software.

[About Metix AI ↗](https://metix.ai/about)

## Next step

See plans, Credit rules, and trial terms on the [Metix AI pricing page](https://metix.ai/pricing). A 14-day trial includes a one-time 1 AI Agent and 500 Credits, with no card required.