The register below is for VC operating partners, platform leads and fund partners who introduce companies to SourceX. We checked every program fact against three SourceX documents on 26 October 2026: the terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), the unsigned sample agreement and the screening page. The register's fields, codes and send rule are this page's own method.
The founder's question, and the permissions hiding behind it
The founder hears a single question: would you like an introduction to SourceX? Behind it sit up to five permissions, often from different people, and a log that records only "CEO said yes" loses four of them.
| Code | Permission | Who can give it | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 Raise | To bring SourceX up with the CEO at all | Whoever owns the relationship: an LP, a co-investor, a portfolio founder or the board member | A short message from that person |
| P2 Introduce | To introduce the company to SourceX | The CEO | An email from the CEO |
| P3 Describe | To tell SourceX named metadata: record types, years, systems, rough headcount | The CEO, or a sponsor the CEO names | The CEO's email listing the facts, or approval of your draft |
| P4 Name the fund | To say the introduction comes through your fund or board seat | The CEO | A line in the same email |
| P5 Report internally | To record the introduction in the fund's own tracker or LP updates | The CEO, plus your fund's policy | The CEO's email and a compliance note |
P5 is the easiest to miss, because it concerns the fund's own paperwork rather than the introduction. A CEO who welcomes a quiet introduction may not want the company named in a report that LPs read.
Why a written chain matters to the program
The terms decide attribution from dated records, including written introduction evidence, existing applications and earlier relationships, and an earlier link click alone does not decide credit. Within the 90-day attribution window, the earliest valid introduction of a company that is new to SourceX earns the credit, which attaches when that company submits a verified application; only one partner can hold it per company. The sample Channel Partner Agreement adds a rule on form: an introduction must be recorded in writing, such as a portal submission, an email or a mutually acknowledged introduction log, and an oral one has to be confirmed in writing before its protection attaches. Apply the same discipline upstream, so a yes on a call becomes a row only once it is confirmed in writing.
For what each row should hold, the UK Information Commissioner's Office offers a sound skeleton. Its guidance on recording consent, paraphrased, asks for who consented, when, what they were told, how and whether and when they withdrew. Most permissions in a business introduction are not consent in the data-protection sense, and this register is not a compliance tool, but the items transfer well. The register adds two fields: the role a person acted in and the boundary of what they allowed.
The consent source-date-scope register
| Field | What to write | Why it earns a column |
|---|---|---|
| Row and company code | A code rather than the company name in any shared view | The register itself should not reveal a confidential conversation |
| Source and role | Name, and the capacity in which they agreed: relationship owner, CEO, CEO-named sponsor, fund compliance | Separates personal interest from company authority |
| Asked by and wording | Who asked, with a copy of the message or call script used | Shows what the person was actually agreeing to |
| Date and evidence | The date of the yes and a link to the email, or a call note confirmed by email | Dated records decide attribution |
| Scope granted | The codes P1 to P5 this row covers | Defines what may travel |
| Scope excluded | Anything the person ruled out, in their own words | Exclusions vanish when notes get summarized |
| Refresh trigger | When the row must be asked again: a new CEO, a sale, a pause longer than 90 days | A permission belongs to its moment |
| Status | Active, interest only, narrowed, declined or withdrawn | Lets the send rule run mechanically |
Worked register (Illustrative). An invented 230-person regional title insurer whose CEO is known to one of the fund's LPs. Every name, date and scope is made up.
| Row | Source and role | Date | Evidence | Scope granted | Scope excluded | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LP principal, relationship owner | 2026-09-02 | P1 | Leave the LP's own stake unmentioned | Active | |
| 2 | COO, personal interest | 2026-09-09 | Call note confirmed by email | None | Not the CEO | Interest only |
| 3 | CEO | 2026-09-16 | P2, P3 | Do not name the fund (P4 refused) | Active | |
| 4 | Fund compliance | 2026-09-17 | Internal note | P5, platform tracker only | No LP report | Active |
| 5 | CFO, sponsor named by the CEO | 2026-09-18 | CEO email naming her | P3, record types and years only | Systems list stays out | Narrowed |
Read the rows together and the send is small: an introduction to SourceX (row 3), with record types and years (rows 3 and 5), without the fund's name (row 3) and without the systems list (row 5). The COO's enthusiasm in row 2 unlocks nothing, and the LP's stake never comes up.
Method note. The five codes and eight fields come from the program terms and the sample agreement's introduction-record rules, read on 26 October 2026, with the ICO's consent-record items as a model. They describe what to record; they do not measure whether any permission was freely given or whether the company will fit.
Interest, authorized sponsorship and a decline, as chains (Illustrative)
The same register handles the three answers a founder can give. Illustrative, with invented companies.
| Chain | What happened | Rows that result | What may be sent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interest only | A portfolio CTO says "let's do it" at a dinner; the CEO has not heard of it | One row, interest only | Nothing; the CTO may raise it with the CEO |
| Authorized sponsorship | The title insurer above: LP agrees, CEO agrees with limits, CFO narrows the metadata | Five rows, three active, one narrowed | The intersection described above |
| Voluntary decline | An LP agrees to the ask; the CEO of a 120-person staffing firm says no | Two rows, the second declined with no reason | Nothing, and nobody asks again unless the CEO raises it |
A fourth chain is a withdrawal. Suppose a CEO agrees on 1 October and writes on 12 October, before the introduction goes out, asking you to hold off until an audit finishes. The row turns to withdrawn and nothing is sent; the refresh trigger is the CEO's own next message. If the introduction has already gone, tell SourceX the CEO asked for a pause. The company controls its own application from there.
A founder's interest is a row; company authority is another
The interest-only status exists because enthusiasm and authority often sit with different people. SourceX's rules leave two things to the CEO, authorizing a licensing discussion and signing for the company, and where an owner runs the business that owner is usually the CEO. An investor relationship supplies neither the CEO's permission nor the company's authority: SourceX's screening page separates a board seat from the authority to open this discussion, and it counts introductions made without the decision maker's knowledge among the usual poor fits. If the relationship owner in row 1 sits on the company's board and could share in a reward, the disclosure steps in whether a board member can earn a referral reward come first.
Rows also cannot make a company fit. The fit checks belong to the company: a peak of 50 or more full-time employees, not counting contractors; years of records it produced itself; the rights to license them; and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 70% of the data is in English. A funding round is not among the checks, and whether the records suit SourceX's current data needs is settled only in its review.
The send rule: pass on the intersection, then log the introduction
- List the active rows for the company and ignore interest-only, declined and withdrawn ones.
- Keep only what every needed row allows: P2 from the CEO, P3 from the CEO and from any sponsor who narrowed it.
- Strip anything any row excluded.
- Ask the duplicate question: has the company ever applied to, opened an account with or exchanged emails with SourceX? The terms treat any earlier application, relationship, lead, account or email correspondence as a duplicate that is not credited to a later partner.
- Send, then record what the agreement's introduction record names: company, domain, partner, opportunity, introduction method and timestamps.
Nothing in any send comes from board materials or investor reporting, and nothing is a file, sample or login; the sample agreement gives a partner no authority to share a supplier's records, raw data or personal information. The log's last precondition sits with the submitter, who signs the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement before any send; a copy signed while the document was titled Channel Partner Non-Circumvention and Non-Disclosure Agreement remains binding as written. To measure how long the chain takes once the CEO agrees, pair this register with the time from permission to a qualified introduction.
Keep the register small, private and dated
- Readers. Only the people who make or approve introductions open it, not the whole deal team or the LP base.
- Contents. Names, roles, dates, scope codes and links to evidence. No company records, and no figures from board packs or investor reporting; what a board observer can learn explains why.
- Retention. The sample agreement's return-and-deletion clause excepts records needed for reward accounting and dispute evidence. That is a sensible horizon for the register: keep a row while a credit, reward or dispute could depend on it, then delete it.
- Personal data. The register names people. The data-protection rules your fund already follows apply to it, including for EU and UK contacts.
Where a permission log misleads
- A logged yes is not proof the yes was free. A row records that someone agreed, not whether a board relationship pushed them.
- Rows go stale. A new CEO, a sale or a long pause empties a permission of meaning; the refresh trigger exists for that.
- Rows written later drift. A note made a week after a call records memory, so write it the same day and send it for confirmation.
- It is not legal advice. Whether data-protection consent rules reach a given contact is a question for the fund's counsel.
- A perfect log creates no demand. SourceX checks relevance to its current data needs and the company's rights in review, records belonging to customers are usually not a fit, and a well-documented company can still be declined.
To test the register, track per quarter the share of introductions whose rows were complete before sending and the number of rows corrected afterwards; SourceX has published no benchmark for either. For the platform team's place in the program, see the overview for venture platform teams, and for the request itself, asking a business owner for permission.
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.
Once every row a send depends on is active and confirmed in writing, set up your partner link through registration, run the company past who qualifies, and reread the program terms before anything leaves the log.
Keeping a permission log is part of making referrals; deciding whether SourceX merits a look as an investment is a different exercise, and an investor who wants to make it can request materials from 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.