When Microsoft opens a SAM review or SPLA audit, the opening number is almost always a worst-case reading of your estate. We defend the customer side only: validating the deployment data, correcting CAL and User Subscription Licence assumptions, and applying Software Assurance and Azure Hybrid Benefit rights the SAM tooling ignores. Across our 340+ engagements that work cuts the initial Microsoft compliance claim by 68% on average — and keeps the review on your contract, not the partner's default interpretation.
Microsoft audit defence is the independent, buyer-side management of a SAM review or SPLA audit from the first contact to the final settlement. We take over the technical and commercial response so Microsoft — or the SAM partner it engages — cannot set the measurement, the timeline, or the price. We hold no Microsoft partner agreement, resell no licences, and take no vendor fees; we represent the customer alone, which is what lets us contest a finding rather than accept it. The objective is simple: pay for genuine shortfalls, and nothing for the tooling's worst-case reading.
Most of the claim a SAM partner presents is interpretation, not entitlement. The inventory tools count installed software as licensed, ignore Software Assurance and Azure Hybrid Benefit rights, double-count users who have multiple devices, and treat every E5 deployment as fully used. In our experience the gap between the opening position and the defensible number is consistently large — the 68% average reduction is what disciplined reconciliation of the data against the contract produces.
Do not share inventory exports yet. We scope what is provided first. Talk to us before you respond.
The claim shrinks finding-by-finding, not through a single concession. This is the pattern we see most often across Microsoft reviews — the SAM partner's opening read on the left, the defensible position after reconciliation on the right.
| Finding area | SAM partner's opening position | Defensible position | Driver of the reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| E3 / E5 mix | Every E5 feature counted as deployed and required | Licensed to actual feature usage | Usage telemetry vs. install evidence |
| CALs / USLs | User and device CALs both counted | Correct access model applied once per user | Access-mode reconciliation |
| Server / Azure Hybrid Benefit | Windows/SQL counted at full list | AHB and Software Assurance rights applied | Existing SA benefits credited |
| True-up exposure | Peak headcount across the period | Validated active users at true-up date | Headcount reconciliation |
| Unused deployments | Installed-but-idle treated as in use | Removed or reassigned, not purchased | Deployment evidence |
The SAM-review response checklist, the E5 usage model, and the Software Assurance and Azure Hybrid Benefit rights map we use in live reviews.
We run a controlled, buyer-side process from the moment Microsoft or its SAM partner makes contact. Every step keeps the measurement on the contract and the timeline on your terms.
We defend the claim and negotiate the deal as one motion — Microsoft uses both as leverage, so we do too.
For the mechanics behind each finding above, read our Microsoft audit defence guide, the EA true-up breakdown, the NCE true-up explainer, the Software Assurance benefits guide, and the Microsoft licensing guide pillar. For the wider methodology, see our audit defence service and the cross-vendor vendor audit defence guide. Negotiating a renewal at the same time? Start with Microsoft negotiation.
A Microsoft SAM review is rarely just a compliance exercise — it is leverage for the next EA. Treating it as both, with independent buyer-side defence, is how the 68% average reduction turns into a settlement that protects the renewal as well as the claim.
From single-product reviews to enterprise-wide SAM engagements, we defend the buyer side only.
Weekly compliance intelligence for IT leaders.