Crediting disputes are rarely about the dollars. They're about what the plan said it would reward. When an SDR books the meeting and the AE closes the deal and they both think they deserve the credit, the real question isn't who did more work — it's what the plan document committed to in writing before either of them touched the opportunity.
This quiz walks through eight common scenarios: SDR/AE handoffs, booked-vs-billed timing, overlay crediting, channel deals, clawbacks, and more. Each has a defensible "Falcon's recommended approach" answer — not the only right answer, but the answer most enterprise comp plans land on after real-world stress testing. The explanations walk you through the reasoning so you can defend (or consciously deviate from) each decision.
What this quiz is actually testing
1. Single-attribution discipline
The fundamental question in crediting: is there one owner of the closed-won credit, or is it shared? Industry practice strongly favours single-attribution (one primary quota carrier gets 100% credit) with overlays and SPIFFs handling supporting contributors. Shared quota dilutes accountability and creates perverse incentives for reps to "ride along" on teammate deals.
2. Trigger timing
Credit triggers on one specific event — usually the signed contract date ("booked"). Every other possible trigger (payment, go-live, billing) creates a gap between the rep's effort and their reward, which weakens the motivational link. The quiz tests whether you default to "booked = credited" or drift toward billing-aligned crediting.
3. Policy vs exception
Many scenarios have a correct answer defined in the plan document — if the plan document actually addresses them. The quiz distinguishes between "what the plan should say" (policy) and "what you should do when the plan is silent" (default to the least-disputable interpretation). The fastest way to reduce crediting disputes is to pre-answer edge cases in writing.
Each of the 8 questions has one "Falcon's recommended approach" answer. Your score is simply the count correct out of 8, mapped to a band: 7–8 = Expert, 5–6 = Solid, 3–4 = Developing, 0–2 = Foundation Needed. Every question includes a full explanation so you can learn from misses, not just get a grade. Skipping questions doesn't reduce your score — you'll see them highlighted as unanswered.
Crediting Scenario Quiz
8 scenarios. Pick your answer. Grade at the bottom.
ℹ️ How this quiz works +
The question it answers: Does your instinct on sales crediting match standard enterprise practice — and where does it diverge?
What to do:
- Read each of the 8 scenarios below — they're drawn from real SalesOps dispute tickets.
- Pick the option that matches what you'd decide if this landed in your inbox.
- You can skip questions you don't want to answer; they'll be flagged in the results.
- When you've gone through all 8, click Grade My Answers at the bottom.
What you'll get back:
- A score out of 8 and a judgment band (Expert / Solid / Developing / Foundation Needed).
- Per-question review: your answer highlighted, Falcon's recommended approach highlighted, and a plain-English explanation of why.
- A link back to Lesson 5.1 — Crediting Fundamentals for deeper context on any scenarios you missed.
These are "Falcon's recommended practice" answers — your company's plan document may legitimately differ. The quiz tests default judgment, not your specific plan.
What to do with your score
7–8 correct: Expert
You have strong working intuition on crediting fundamentals. Use this quiz with your SalesOps team — variance in their answers reveals where your current plan document is ambiguous. Areas of disagreement are where you should add explicit policy language before next planning cycle.
5–6 correct: Solid
Solid judgment on the common cases, a miss or two on edge cases. Read the explanations for your misses carefully — they're usually where plan documents are silent and disputes land. Consider adding a "crediting edge cases" section to your plan for the scenarios you missed.
3–4 correct: Developing
You have the basics but would benefit from the full crediting framework. Start with Lesson 5.1 — Crediting Fundamentals, then progress through 5.2 (splits & overlays), 5.3 (complex crediting), and 5.4 (disputes). The scenarios you missed are the ones most likely to surface as real disputes.
0–2 correct: Foundation needed
The current crediting framework feels intuitive only after you've seen the tradeoffs. Work through Module 5 systematically before designing or revising your comp plan — most of the scenarios here have "surprise" answers because they prioritize plan simplicity and dispute avoidance over absolute fairness.
Stop arguing about crediting every quarter
We help SalesOps teams turn ambiguous plans into explicit policy documents that pre-answer the edge cases reps will find. Book a 20-minute review.
Book a 20-minute consultation →FAQ
Not wrong, just different. The quiz reflects the most common enterprise practice across hundreds of comp plans. Your company's plan may legitimately deviate for good reasons — high-touch products favor split credit, partner-led models centre channel economics. The quiz tests default judgment when no specific plan rule applies.
The explanations walk through the tradeoffs. Many scenarios have 2–3 defensible answers; the "correct" option is the one most likely to survive legal review, auditor scrutiny, and rep disputes simultaneously. If your answer survives all three tests, it's a defensible deviation.
Yes — and you should. Have each team member take it independently, then compare results. Where they diverge from each other reveals ambiguity in your current plan. Where they collectively diverge from the "standard" answer reveals places your plan has a conscious (or unconscious) deviation from industry norm.
No — it covers the most-disputed eight. Complex scenarios like product-hierarchy crediting, multi-product deals, and geo-split deals are covered in Lesson 5.3 — Complex Crediting. This quiz is the foundational layer.