If your development team can’t agree on what a qualified candidate is, the ads, the inquiry form and the sales calls will each run on a different definition. When that happens, fix the definition before you touch the form or the media.
This guide sets out a proposed method: three grades, one workflow status, a rule table with fixed precedence, and four fictional candidate records you can reproduce from the table.
Three grades and one status
Every assessed inquiry gets one of three grades. Each grade has an owner and a next action.
| Grade | Color | Means | Next action | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified | Green | Passes every must-have rule, no open dependency | Development call booked | Development rep |
| Nurture | Amber | No failed rule, at least one named dependency (funding date, timing, alternative territory) | Dated follow-up tied to that dependency | Development rep |
| Disqualified | Red | Fails a must-have rule with no approved exception, or the candidate declined | Close with the reason recorded | Development rep |
Not yet graded is a workflow status, not a grade. The record is missing an answer the rules need, or the answer needs a person to review it. The grade stays blank until it’s resolved. Report graded and ungraded records as separate counts, so a missing answer never gets counted as red.
Store two fields: grade (Qualified / Nurture / Disqualified / blank) and grading_status (Graded / Not yet graded).
The rule table
This example is a fictional US home inspection franchisor, “Northfield Inspections”. The minimum is USD 70,000 in liquid funds of the candidate’s own. The thresholds are illustrative. The structure is what you copy.
| # | Rule | Type | Pass | Dependency (Nurture) | Missing or manual review | Fail (Disqualified) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Territory | Must-have | Named territory is Open | Wanted territory is Reserved, and candidate accepts a named Open alternative | “Somewhere else”, “Not sure yet”, or a place the rep hasn’t matched to a territory ID | Only wants Sold territories and declines every alternative |
| R2 | Own liquid funds (excluding borrowing and non-liquid assets) | Must-have | $70,000 or more | $56,000 to $69,999 with a funding plan confirmed by a rep: a named source and an expected date | $56,000 to $69,999 with no plan, or a plan not yet confirmed; “Prefer to discuss”; blank | Under $56,000, unless an exception is approved |
| R3 | Owner role in year one | Must-have | “I’ll do the inspections myself” | (none) | “Open to it, want to discuss”; or “hire inspectors from day one” (checked for the existing-operator exception; if no exception is approved, it fails) | Wants a passive investment; or hire-from-day-one with no approved exception |
| R4 | Timing | Dependency | Within 6 months | 6 to 18 months, or “just exploring” | Blank | Never fails on its own |
| R5 | Motivation | Priority only | Stored. Affects call priority, never the grade |
Precedence. Apply in this order and stop at the first match:
- Any must-have fails with no approved exception → Disqualified.
- Otherwise, any R1 to R4 answer is missing or needs manual review → Not yet graded.
- Otherwise, any dependency → Nurture.
- Otherwise → Qualified.
Boundary cases, so nobody has to guess:
| Situation | R2 result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Exactly $70,000 | Pass | The minimum is inclusive |
| $60,000, no plan | Manual review → Not yet graded | Inside the band, but no source for the gap |
| $60,000, plan typed on the form but not yet confirmed | Manual review → Not yet graded | A form answer isn’t evidence until a rep confirms the source and date |
| $60,000, rental sale closing 15 Aug, confirmed by rep | Dependency → Nurture | Inside the band, with a confirmed named source and date |
| $55,000 with a plan | Fail → Disqualified | Below the band. Only an approved exception changes this |
R2 says “own liquid funds” on purpose. “Capital” or “investment” gets back three different meanings: total investment, cash, and borrowing. Define the term on the form itself.
Four worked records
All four candidates are fictional. Rules version v2.1.
Record A: Qualified
| Field | Answer (kept as written) | Rule result |
|---|---|---|
| Territory | “Austin north, TX-AUS-02” | R1 pass (Open) |
| Liquid funds | “$85,000 in savings” | R2 pass |
| Role | “I’ll do the inspections myself” | R3 pass |
| Timing | “Within 3 months” | R4 pass |
| Motivation | “15 years in residential construction, want my own business” | R5 stored |
No fails, nothing missing, no dependencies. Grade: Qualified. Call booked. Owner: Sam.
Record B: Nurture
| Field | Answer | Rule result |
|---|---|---|
| Territory | “TX-AUS-03” | R1 pass |
| Liquid funds | “$60,000 now, selling a rental, closing expected 15 Aug” (on the form); confirmed by Sam on the first call, 9 May | R2 dependency (confirmed plan) |
| Role | “I’ll do the inspections myself” | R3 pass |
| Timing | “6 to 12 months” | R4 dependency |
Grade: Nurture. Dependencies: funds on 15 Aug, timing. Follow-up dated 20 Aug. Owner: Sam.
Record C: Not yet graded, then Qualified with an approved exception
| Field | Form answer | Rule result |
|---|---|---|
| Territory | “Somewhere else: Round Rock” | R1 missing (not matched to an ID) |
| Liquid funds | (blank) | R2 missing |
| Role | “I’ll hire inspectors from day one” | R3 manual review (exception check) |
| Timing | “3 to 6 months” | R4 pass |
Nothing has failed outright. R1 and R2 are missing and R3 needs an exception check, so precedence step 2 applies: Not yet graded. Sam calls. Round Rock falls inside TX-AUS-05 (Open). Liquid funds are $120,000. He owns a property maintenance company with four staff, and he’d put a licensed inspector on the payroll with himself doing the first inspections alongside.
The development director approves an existing-operator exception to R3. The exception changes R3 only. R1 and R2 now pass on the confirmed answers, and R4 already passed.
| Override log field | Value |
|---|---|
| Record | C |
| Old grade / status | blank / Not yet graded |
| New grade / status | Qualified / Graded |
| Rule excepted | R3 only |
| Reason | Existing operator with staff and a trade background |
| Approved by | Development Director |
| Date | 22 May 2026 |
| Rules version | v2.1 |
| Follow-up | R3 to get a written existing-operator path in v2.2 |
That last line is the point of logging overrides. A pattern of exceptions shows you where the rule is wrong.
Record D: Disqualified
Territory TX-AUS-02 (Open), $150,000, timing within 3 months, role “I’m looking for an investment someone else runs”. R3 fails and there’s no exception path for passive ownership. Grade: Disqualified. Closed with the reason recorded. Offered a check-in if his plans change.
Keep the original answer next to the grade
“Bad lead” tells the next person nothing. “Only wants Sold territory TX-AUS-01; declined TX-AUS-02 and -03” tells them exactly what happened, and lets the team re-grade fast if that territory reopens. Store the original answers, the grade, the status and the rules version. Without the version, a change in “lead quality” might just be a definition that moved mid-month.
Calibrate before you automate
Before a form or CRM workflow grades automatically, take a starting sample (20 recent records is a reasonable size, not a validated threshold). Remove names. Have two reps grade them separately against the written rules, then compare their results.
Disagreements come from three places: unclear rule wording, missing information, or two people reading the same answer differently. Fix whichever one it was. Include messy records, because those are where automation goes wrong.
Agreement between reps shows the rules are applied consistently. It doesn’t show they predict signings. Following each grade through to signed agreements over a comparable period tells you how useful the grade is as a predictor. It still doesn’t prove the grade caused the outcome.
Start here
Copy the rule table. Replace the illustrative thresholds with your real must-haves, agreed with sales and operations. Then grade your last 20 inquiries with it before you change the form.
Download: qualification-standard.csv (four records and the override log) and decision-rules.csv (the shared rule table, also used by the form guide).
Related: Which form questions to ask · Ad leads versus CRM records · Cost per signed franchise
Put it to work on your recruitment system
Bring your recruitment page and anonymized stage counts to a diagnostic. We’ll identify what to test and how to measure it.
Discuss your franchisor recruitment system