The agreement we have worked under, the conversations that crossed in transit, and a working draft for shaping the path forward together
A candidate ownership question surfaced on the Hub Bloomington search, and our two teams turned out to be carrying different understandings since mid May. Percy went back through everything: the signed agreement, five call transcripts, and the full email record. The short version: the searches were commenced under the signed agreement, both teams tried to clarify the standard mid-stream, and each attempt was missed by the other side. We understand the confusion completely, because we contributed to it equally. Our hope is that this becomes the working document Zeeshan and Mike mark up together and turn into the amendment. Anywhere Core sees it differently is exactly the conversation we want to have.
Percy and Core Spaces signed our Service Agreement on August 13, 2024, and it has governed every search since, including the eight roles this spring. On candidate ownership it draws one line: candidates currently scheduled for a specific step in Core's recruiting process are never referred and never billed. Everyone else Percy engages, screens, and delivers is a Percy referral.
That standard governed the Hub Bloomington launch on May 27 and every submittal since. In practice, Percy has gone further than the agreement requires: when Felix flagged one candidate tied to another agency and one Core had recently interviewed and rejected, Percy stepped aside on both immediately, even though a rejected candidate who is not currently in process is not reserved under the agreement's terms. The agreement can absolutely evolve, and this document exists so we can shape that together. Our ask is simple: work already performed resolves under the terms it was performed under, and the new standard applies from here forward.
Service Agreement executed
16% fee, one-year referral window, Net 30 from start date, 90-day tiered guarantee. The active-process carve-out described above is the agreement's only candidate ownership term.
Intake call: Zeeshan, Ben, Mike
Zeeshan announces the consolidation to Percy as the single student housing partner. Candidate ownership is not raised by anyone, and the existing contract is discussed warmly:
Madison CLM assigned; the disclosure-list protocol is born
After the May 7 intake call, Felix sends two attachments in writing, scoped to "this specific role": a Restricted Companies List and a list of candidates he has contacted for the Madison position. Ben commits the same morning to honor both. This per-role disclosure protocol works beautifully, and it is the seed of the fix this document proposes.
Felix states Core's 12-month standard; Percy misses it
Resolving two duplicate flags from the Madison work, Felix explains on the May 13 call that one candidate belongs to another agency, and that the other "had applied organically within our system... within the last 12 months," so would be Core's. He recaps it in writing the next day:
Percy never replied. The email landed mid-transition, with Ben announcing his departure on the same May 13 call, and it slipped through. That miss is ours, and we own it.
Jake states Percy's standard; the loop never closes in this direction either
One week later, on his first weekly touchpoint as lead, Jake raises candidate ownership directly:
When Felix clarified that Michelle had actually interviewed with Core and been rejected, Jake ceded her on the spot. Worth noting: that was a courtesy beyond the agreement, which reserves only candidates currently in process. Jake then described the re-engagement principle: a candidate who applied, never responded to Core's outreach, and was later revived by Percy is a Percy referral. No objection was raised and the call ended warmly. This was Percy's mirror image of Felix's email: a sincere clarification that did not make it up the other organization.
Hub Bloomington CLM launches under the agreement
Hannah Coleman (Associate Manager, Talent Acquisition - Community) assigns the role with full job details. The assignment includes no contacted-candidates list, no restricted list, and no ownership terms, so Percy commenced the search under the standing agreement, as it has every search for two years.
Percy engages, screens, and submits five candidates
Karyn Burnell and Carter Challance on June 5; Wil Stahly, De'Na Newborn, and Renee Stewart on June 8. Each submittal arrives interview-ready: screened, interested, vetted on compensation, with full notes and resumes.
Hannah's flags surface the gap, in good faith
Within two hours of Karyn's submittal, Hannah flags that Karyn is in Core's system:
On the June 8 calibration call, Wil surfaces the same way: a direct application under a prior name, April outreach, no response since. Jake states Percy's standard live; Hannah relays the 12-month guidance she received and offers to circle back; Jake shares the signed agreement; Hannah graciously sends the Bloomington contacted list that evening. The two standards are now side by side, and Zeeshan and Mike take it up the same week.
The pipeline keeps moving, as it should
Both teams keep cooperating: De'Na confirmed with the hiring manager for Thursday June 11 at 3:45 PM Central, Karyn scheduled with the hiring manager for June 11, and Carter's identity confirmed (a name change from Terence Watter Jr for family reasons; he is excited to interview). That is the partnership working exactly as it should.
Here is the fairest possible framing of what happened, and it cuts both ways. Each team tried to put its standard on the table in mid May. Each attempt was sincere, clear, and made in good faith. And each was missed by the other side.
"Michelle applied organically within the past 12 months... so will be considered our candidate as they're already in our database."
Felix stated the 12-month standard verbally and confirmed it in writing the next day.
"That generally is somebody that we would want credit for if she had applied and maybe the team had reached out to her and she just never got back to y'all."
Jake stated Percy's standard and the re-engagement principle directly, six days after Felix's email, with no objection raised on the call.
Nobody acted in bad faith. Felix communicated clearly and we missed it; Jake communicated clearly and it did not land on Core's side either. Neither attempt amended the agreement. A standard this important belongs in the contract, applied prospectively. That is the fix we are proposing together, and it is why in-flight searches should resolve under the terms they were commenced under.
We curate engaged candidates.
We don't supply names.
The Percy service, in one line
A name in an ATS is not a candidate. Karyn Burnell sat in Core's database from February: outreach went unanswered, and she could never be reached again. Wil Stahly applied directly, Core reached out in April, and never heard back. For months, those records produced nothing, through no fault of Core's team. That is what cold databases do.
Then Percy found them independently, got them on the phone, screened them, rebuilt their interest, vetted compensation, and delivered them ready to interview. Within days, Karyn was on the hiring manager's calendar. The distance between a dormant record and a hiring manager interview is the entire service Percy provides, and the only thing the fee pays for. Hannah's June 5 note says it best: she could "follow up with them to gauge their interest now" because Percy's work had just revived a contact unreachable since February.
The line protects both sides. Anyone Core is actively working is untouchable and unbillable, and Percy honors that instantly. Where it felt right, we have gone past the contract itself, ceding a candidate Core had recently interviewed and rejected. And the re-engagement work that turns a dormant record into a hire stays billable, because it is the work itself. Whatever standard we write together should keep protecting both.
Every candidate below was independently engaged, screened, and submitted by Percy with full notes and resumes. None was scheduled for any step in Core's process when submitted, which is the agreement's test. Core's own records, generously shared by Hannah, confirm the histories.
| Candidate | History in Core's system | What Percy's work produced | Under the agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karyn Burnell | In system from February; Core's outreach went unanswered and she "could never" be reached after | Re-engaged, screened, submitted June 5; hiring manager interview June 11 | Percy referral |
| Wil Stahly | Applied directly under a prior name; Core's April outreach went unanswered, no contact since | Engaged, screened, submitted June 8; Core now weighing fit | Percy referral |
| Carter Challance | Spoke with Hannah in 2025 about a different role, under his prior name; no process since | Engaged, screened, identity confirmed June 10; ready to interview | Percy referral |
| De'Na Newborn | No prior record | Engaged, screened, submitted June 8; hiring manager interview June 11 | Percy referral |
Percy stepped aside twice this spring the moment the facts were known: Tearra Clark, tied to another agency, and Michelle Nash, recently interviewed and rejected by Core. The second was a courtesy beyond the agreement's terms, since Michelle was not in an active process. We protect Core's side of this line instinctively, even past where the contract requires it, and we ask the same good faith on ours.
The encouraging part of this record is that both teams already reached for good fixes on their own: Felix sent per-role disclosure lists at the Madison launch, and Hannah sent one for Bloomington the moment the gap surfaced. The proposals below build on those instincts. Every one of them is a starting point for discussion, not a demand, and we would love Core's edits on all of it.
The Bloomington and Madison work was commenced, performed, and submitted under the existing terms, and both teams relied on them in real time. The four active candidates above are Percy referrals under those terms, and the pipeline keeps moving without interruption: De'Na and Karyn interview Thursday as scheduled.
Zeeshan and Mike walk through this draft together and settle three questions: what level of prior contact reserves a candidate for Core, whether the role applied to matters, and how conflicts get surfaced and resolved, by whom, and within how many days. Mark it up, push back anywhere, and the amendment writes itself from the answers.
Our favorite version of this fix, and one we would propose adopting together: Core holds each requisition until the team feels it has had a full opportunity to mine its own database, then turns it over. Take whatever time that requires. From that moment, everything Percy produces is incremental by construction, the ownership question can essentially never arise, and Core's internal recruiting effort gets full credit for everything it can land on its own.
When a requisition does come over, Core attaches its look-back list of applicants and prior contacts, exactly as Felix did for Madison and Hannah now does for Bloomington. Percy never spends an hour on a name Core has reserved, and no submittal ever comes as a surprise. Between this and the step above, this entire episode becomes structurally impossible.
Percy drafts the amendment as soon as the standard is set, so every future recruiter on either team applies a written rule rather than a remembered one. This question only became a question because the answer lived in conversation.
Mike for Percy, Zeeshan for Core. Anything touching terms routes between the two of them with a one-business-day acknowledgment, so nothing important ever falls into a transition gap again.
This account matters to us. Core consolidated its student housing recruiting with Percy because the contract and the work earned that trust, and nothing about this episode changes our commitment to it. Read this draft critically, tell us where Core sees it differently, and let's write the standard the way both teams already operate at their best. We are confident that once we do, this is the last conversation of its kind we ever need to have.
| Source | Type | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Service Agreement, Aug 13 2024 | Signed contract | The governing terms; active-process carve-out is the only ownership exclusion |
| Apr 28 intake call | Transcript | Consolidation announced; no ownership discussion; contract praised as-is |
| May 5 to 8 Madison threads + intake | Email + transcript | Per-role disclosure lists sent and honored; the working protocol in action |
| May 13 call + May 14 email | Transcript + email | Core's clarification attempt: the 12-month standard, stated and written; no Percy reply |
| May 20 weekly touchpoint | Transcript | Percy's clarification attempt: Percy's standard and the re-engagement principle; no objection raised |
| May 27 to 28 Bloomington assignment | Email + call | Search commenced under the standing agreement; no list or ownership terms at launch |
| Jun 5 to 10 candidate threads | Submittals, Hannah's same-day flags, candidate histories from Core's own records, interview scheduling | |
| Jun 8 calibration call | Transcript | The two standards stated side by side; Bloomington disclosure list sent that evening |