# Quota Fairness & Sandbagging Audit Checklist

> A structured 17-point audit that surfaces the quota-setting patterns: sandbagged territories, stacked ramp assumptions, uneven TAM, comp-history bias: that quietly convince reps the number is rigged, before that belief shows up as attrition.

Free checklist for sales leaders. Topic: [Comp, Quota, Territory & Capacity Planning](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/topic/comp-quota-territory-capacity-planning/). Published by PeerLab in the [Sales Enablement Resource Library](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/). Source: https://www.peerlab.ai/library/quota-fairness-sandbagging-audit-checklist/

## How to use it

Score all 17 items against real CRM/territory data before finalizing quotas each cycle; any score below 20 should trigger a reconciliation pass before quotas reach reps.

## What's inside

- Territory & TAM equity checks (items 1–4)
- Historical-data integrity / sandbagging-signal checks (items 5–8)
- Ramp and stacked-ramp checks (items 9–11)
- Comp-history bias checks (items 12–14)
- Manager-discretion audit points (items 15–17)
- 0–2 scoring rubric per item with a 34-point total
- Score-based remediation triggers

Run this before every quota-setting cycle using actual CRM/territory data, not manager say-so. Score each item **0 (fails) / 1 (partial) / 2 (passes)** and total at the end.

## A. Territory & TAM Equity
1. ☐ Every territory's TAM (account count × average deal size for that segment) has been recalculated this cycle, not carried forward from last year's map
2. ☐ No territory has more than 1.5x the TAM of another territory at the same quota level without an explicitly documented reason (new market, strategic account, etc.)
3. ☐ Account reassignments from the prior period are reflected in TAM before quota is set, not applied against last year's frozen number
4. ☐ "Legacy" accounts (assigned for reasons unrelated to current territory logic) are flagged and excluded from the TAM-equity comparison, or explicitly justified if included

## B. Historical-Data Integrity (Sandbagging Signals)
5. ☐ No territory shows pipeline consistently entered late in the quarter relative to peers (a classic sandbagging tell, check average days-in-pipeline-before-quarter-close by rep)
6. ☐ Win rates by rep have been checked for artificial suppression (deals marked "lost" then re-created next quarter as "new")
7. ☐ Forecast-to-actual variance by rep has been reviewed for consistent under-forecasting (reps who beat their own forecast by >20% every quarter is a sandbagging signal, not just high performance)
8. ☐ Quota baseline uses a rolling trailing average (e.g. trailing 4 quarters), not a single best-or-worst prior quarter a rep could have gamed

## C. Ramp & Tenure Checks
9. ☐ No rep is carrying a full, un-adjusted quota while still inside their documented ramp period
10. ☐ "Stacked ramp" is checked, a rep who inherited a second ramping territory (e.g. absorbed a departed colleague's book) has quota reduced to reflect two ramp curves, not one
11. ☐ Tenure-based quota relief, if the company grants it, is applied consistently across reps at the same tenure stage, not manager-discretionary on some and not others

## D. Comp-History Bias Checks
12. ☐ Quota is not silently anchored to a rep's last plan's payout rather than territory potential (a rep who negotiated a soft quota last year shouldn't get that same soft number rolled forward)
13. ☐ High performers aren't penalized with disproportionately higher quota increases purely because they overachieved: increase % should correlate with TAM/territory change, not last year's attainment %
14. ☐ Underperforming territories are checked for a structural cause (TAM, competitive intensity, product fit) before quota relief is denied on the assumption it's a rep-execution problem

## E. Manager-Discretion Audit
15. ☐ Every manager-requested quota exception this cycle is logged with a written justification, not verbal
16. ☐ Exception rate by manager is reviewed: a manager granting exceptions to most of their team signals a base methodology problem, not a rep problem
17. ☐ Reps have a documented channel to flag a quota they believe is inequitable, with a defined response SLA, separate from asking their own manager informally

## Scoring & Remediation
```
Total Score = Sum of all 17 items (max 34)
```

| Score | Read | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 30–34 | Quota-setting process is sound | Proceed to rollout |
| 20–29 | Meaningful gaps | Run the Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Quota-Setting Framework on flagged territories before rollout |
| <20 | Systemic fairness risk | Halt rollout; RevOps + Sales Leadership joint review required before quotas are communicated |