A refund reverses an issued credit, then the customer spends again
A customer qualifies in February and the March review issues 10 credits. A $20 refund in March pulls her under $50, and the April review reverses the credit. A backdated order then puts her back over $50 inside the original window. Whether that re-qualifies her is not stated.
Look at: Whether the customer is a Qualified Referral again, and whether a second credit is proposed. The reversal itself is not in dispute -- the credit was reversed additively and the original issuance is still in history.
The readings
A reversed referral is spent
One Qualified Referral per customer for life, and this customer has had hers -- the fact that it was reversed does not return it.
- Qualified Referrals
- 0
- Qualified customers
- none
Simulated as fitgrill.fuel_partner/3.1+sim(no_requalification)
The test can be met again
The lifetime limit caps how many credits a customer can generate, not how many attempts they get; if the window's spend genuinely reaches $50 the condition is satisfied.
- Qualified Referrals
- 1
- Qualified customers
- cus_refunded
Difference from the published reading: +1 Qualified Referral
Simulated as fitgrill.fuel_partner/3.1+sim(requalification_allowed)
What differs
Only the fields the readings disagree about.
Scroll the table sideways to see every column.
| Field | A reversed referral is spent | The test can be met again |
|---|---|---|
| Qualified Referrals | 0 | 1 |
| Qualified customers | none | cus_refunded |
Qualifying dollars per customer
The same customers, the same orders, read two ways.
Scroll the table sideways to see every column.
| Customer | A reversed referral is spent | The test can be met again |
|---|---|---|
| cus_refunded | $80.00 | $80.00 |
Nothing on this page is a decision. Every column is what the agreement could mean, and the simulation cannot change the published terms. All scenarios →