Working with others
An automation got it wrong with a third party
A notice went out that should not have, and a client has already seen it. What to do, in order.
Sooner or later it happens: a rule fires on data that was not what you thought, and a reminder goes out to a supplier who had already delivered, or an expiry warning for something already renewed. The bad news is you cannot unsend. The good news is it is usually fixed in an afternoon if done in the right order.
The order that works
- 1
Switch the rule off first
If it stays on, it is sending more while you write the apology. It is the most skipped step.
- 2
Check how many people received it
It changes the response entirely: one contact is not two hundred.
- 3
Tell them before they ask
One line, no technical excuses: what arrived, why it did not apply, and what to ignore.
- 4
And fix the cause, not the case
Correcting that one file and leaving the rule alone guarantees a repeat next month.
Important
The third step decides how the third party experiences it, and it is worth doing even when the error is harmless. A client who gets an odd notice and hears nothing more concludes your system sends things at random; the same client told within twenty minutes concludes you are on top of it. Same error, opposite readings.
What NOT to do
| Not this | Why |
|---|---|
| Send another automated correction | If the first went wrong, the second arrives under the same suspicion |
| Explain the technical detail | The recipient does not care which rule it was; they care whether they must act |
| Wait and see if anyone complains | Those who do not complain read it too |
| Delete the trace of what went out | It is the only thing that lets you explain later what happened |
Watch out
The nuance that surprises people looking at the breakdown: the correction **is also a send**, and counts as an action just like the mistaken one. If the wrong notice went to two hundred contacts, the apology is one more send, not two hundred — but the original error was already counted. Not a reason to skip correcting; very much a reason not to leave a misaimed rule running for days.
How to stop it recurring
Worth knowing
If the wrong notice had consequences — saying something had expired when it had not, or asking for documents already supplied — note it in that third party's file. If someone reconstructs the relationship weeks later, that note explains a message that would otherwise look like carelessness on your side.
›Can a send already out be cancelled?
A signature request can be voided so the link stops working; an email already delivered cannot.
›Do I tell everyone or only those who reply?
Everyone who received it: the others read it too.
›What if the agent did it rather than a rule?
Same order. And review how far you had let it act.
A real case
The situation
A rule sends expiry reminders to thirty suppliers who had already renewed.
What you do
- Switches the rule off, checks the reach and tells all thirty the same day
- Fixes the rule's condition, not just the files
What you get
No supplier calls to ask, and the error does not repeat the following month.
The situation
A rule sends a reminder to a supplier who had already delivered, and they phone annoyed.
What you do
- Checks which rule fired it and on what condition
- Narrows the condition so it checks the status first
- Writes to the supplier explaining the error
What you get
The error is fixed in the rule and does not repeat with the other hundred and twenty suppliers.
The situation
The automation sends a notice containing another supplier's data.
What you do
- Stops the rule and checks the scope
What you get
The error is cut before it repeats.
The situation
The error is discovered a week later.
What you do
- Reviews the run history periodically
What you get
The fault is caught in hours.
The situation
Nobody knows how many received the wrong notice.
What you do
- Checks that rule's send log
What you get
Those affected are warned rather than everyone.
The situation
The rule is fixed and whoever received it is not told.
What you do
- Writes to those affected explaining what happened
What you get
The relationship does not suffer from silence.
The situation
The whole rule is switched off over one case.
What you do
- Narrows the condition instead of switching it off
What you get
What worked keeps working.
The situation
The error repeats because nobody documented it.
What you do
- Notes what happened and what changed
What you get
The next person does not reintroduce it.
This article answers
- a reminder was sent by mistake
- an automatic rule notified the wrong person
- cancel a send that already went out
- apologising for a wrong automated notice