A founder who asks the platform team about licensing company data is asking two things at once: is this worth my time, and who will answer me. The second question is the one a service level can fix cheaply. The first depends on SourceX's review and the founder's own decision, and no response time on the platform side changes it.
What a founder needs from an introduction, and what it costs the team
The founder needs a predictable answer, one named contact and no pressure. SourceX licenses business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation; the company controls whether to proceed, what scope to offer and the terms it accepts, and the platform team never exports, uploads or describes its records. Fit is screened on published criteria, starting with 50 or more full-time employees at peak, and the CEO authorizes any licensing discussion.
The team pays in hours taken from everything else it runs. Platform teams are already service functions: Andreessen Horowitz, for example, says it pioneered the platform model with operators spanning marketing, talent, legal and policy. A data licensing introduction joins that queue and competes for the same people.
The reward cannot pay for the queue in advance. By default a company's first qualifying transaction pays the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap, and nothing is payable before the Acquisition Partner's acceptance, the cleared payment to SourceX, the company's own payment and finance approval have all happened. So every figure below books referral income at $0, and the service level has to justify itself through founder usefulness alone.
Objectives, not agreements
Google's Site Reliability Engineering book gives the vocabulary. A service level indicator (SLI) is a carefully defined quantitative measure of some aspect of a service. A service level objective (SLO) is a target value or range for that indicator. A service level agreement (SLA) is an explicit or implicit contract with users that includes consequences of meeting or missing the objectives, and the book's test is simple: if there is no explicit consequence, it is almost certainly an SLO.
Founder introductions need objectives, not agreements, for three reasons:
- The team does not control the outcome. SourceX reviews the company, and the CEO decides. An agreement implies a consequence the team could not deliver.
- The partner agreement limits what can be promised. A partner may not commit SourceX to prices, licenses, payouts or other obligations, and may not tell a company that a purchase or a reward is guaranteed by an estimate, positive interest, a signature or a data upload.
- Objectives can be measured honestly. Three indicators are enough: the share of requests acknowledged on time, the share of screens answered on time, and the share of stalls escalated on time.
The response-and-escalation commitments template
One page, shared with founders as "what to expect from us". Platform clocks are Illustrative targets to set yourself; SourceX rows repeat only what SourceX has published, with its own caveats.
| Moment | Whose clock | Commitment | What the founder hears | Escalate when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A founder or CEO asks about data licensing | Platform team | Acknowledge within 2 business days and name one contact (Illustrative) | Who handles this and what happens next | No acknowledgment by day 3: the head of platform takes it |
| Fit screen on the published criteria | Platform team | A yes, no or later within 10 business days, from metadata only (Illustrative) | Whether the company looks like a fit on the published checks, never whether SourceX will accept it | Facts still missing at day 10: suggest the company fit checker and mark it later |
| The CEO decides whether to talk to SourceX | The CEO | No clock; one follow-up at most | What the first step involves, and that the decision is the CEO's | Never escalate a CEO's silence; close it as later |
| Written introduction and portal submission | Platform team | Within 2 business days of the CEO's yes (Illustrative) | That the introduction went in and SourceX may contact the company directly | Not submitted by day 3 |
| SourceX review of the opportunity | SourceX | No review duration is published | That timing is SourceX's | Ten business days without news: the owner asks SourceX for the referral's status |
| Supplier deal steps after the Master | SourceX and the company | Quote SourceX's published targets only: inventory assessment initially up to 30 days from the Master signature, commercial feedback usually 7 to 14 days, acceptance review up to 30 days, payment within 60 calendar days after a valid invoice | SourceX's targets, in SourceX's words, including that a target is not a promise | Contract or pricing questions go to SourceX, never answered by the team |
| A rights or contract question | The company's counsel and SourceX's rights review | Route it within 2 business days (Illustrative) | That the team does not give a view on rights | Never escalate by offering an opinion |
| The fund's own reward, if it is the partner | SourceX | Deadline of 60 calendar days after the later of final written acceptance and completed handoff, once every condition is met | Nothing; this row is internal | A condition looks met and the deadline has passed: ask hello@sourcex.si for an explanation |
Method note. The template was assembled on 2026-10-26 from the referral terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), the referral how-it-works page, the supplier process on sourcex.si/how-it-works and the unsigned Channel Partner Agreement sample, with indicator definitions from Google's SRE book. The 2-day and 10-day platform clocks are Illustrative choices, not industry benchmarks; SourceX has not published referral review durations, conversion rates or founder satisfaction data, and no comparable platform-team response data has been published. Measure your own.
Two rows deserve care. The fourth sets up the hand-off: once the introduction is in, SourceX may communicate with the company directly, and the founder should hear that from you first. The sixth is where platform teams most often overreach. Each SourceX timing is a target the company itself describes with caveats, such as commercial feedback that "usually takes 7–14 days; that is a target, not a promise", so quote it as SourceX's, never as yours. If the founder is handing over to a new CEO, the commitments follow the new CEO; data licensing introductions around a founder's retirement covers that change.
Hours behind each commitment, with income at $0
Illustrative assumptions per request, to replace with logged time: acknowledgment 0.25 hours, screen 0.75 hours, CEO conversation 1.5 hours, introduction 0.5 hours, each status check 0.25 hours, each escalation 0.5 hours.
| Activity in one quarter (Illustrative) | Count | Hours |
|---|---|---|
| Requests acknowledged | 12 | 3 |
| Screens answered | 12 | 9 |
| CEO conversations | 5 | 7.5 |
| Introductions submitted | 3 | 1.5 |
| Status checks, three per introduced company | 9 | 2.25 |
| Escalations | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 43 activities | 24.25 |
About 24 hours a quarter, roughly 8 a month, with $0 of referral income booked. The indicators for the same quarter might read 11 of 12 requests acknowledged within 2 business days and 10 of 12 screens answered within 10. Whether 8 hours a month needs a named owner is the question in when to assign a dedicated owner to data partnerships, and a pilot sized to finish is laid out in the ten-company pilot.
Tighten, hold or drop the commitments
- Tighten a clock only after a full quarter in which it was met for nearly every request and founders came back with a second question or company.
- Hold a clock that slips because of a capacity crunch, such as a fundraise, and say so to founders with a restart date; quietly missing it costs more trust than a stated pause.
- Drop the published service level when founders do not use it.
A service level that should stop (Illustrative). A fund publishes the template to 40 portfolio CEOs. In one quarter three requests arrive. All three companies have fewer than 50 full-time employees at peak, none reaches a CEO conversation, and the team logs 6 hours keeping the page, the queue and the reminders going. The indicators look perfect, 3 of 3 on time, and the program is still not worth running. Drop the published page, keep a one-line contact in the founder handbook, and revisit when the screen in the venture platform overview finds companies that pass.
Where a service level backfires
- It is read as SourceX's promise. A founder may hear "10 business days" as an acceptance timeline. Say in every message which clock is yours and which is SourceX's.
- Speed crowds out fit. Fast acknowledgments are cheap; fast screens can push weak companies forward. The screen stays metadata-only, and "later" is a valid answer.
- Escalation becomes pressure. Chasing a CEO who has not replied turns a service into a sales sequence. The template never escalates silence.
- SourceX's targets can move. They are targets, not promises, and the published process can change; check it before quoting.
- Small numbers mislead. A dozen requests a quarter cannot establish a reliable percentage; read the indicators over several quarters.
For the first call itself, see how to help a founder prepare for the first discovery call; for the first message, the introduction email templates for venture platform teams.
Next step
Refer a company. No cap on rewards. Default reward on a company's first qualifying transaction: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, including the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
Publish the template only after a quarter of logging shows founders use it: register for a partner link, screen requests with who qualifies and the company fit checker, and read the payment section of the program terms before writing any SourceX row. More platform guides are in the guides library.
A service level for founder introductions is an operating question for the platform team; anyone weighing SourceX itself as an investment faces a different decision and can ask for investor materials through the SourceX investor overview.
This article is for information only and is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. Any offering by SourceX is made only to verified accredited investors through its offering documents.