For a portfolio operations director this matters because specialists are where venture networks are densest. Funds back narrow, expert companies; LPs own boutique firms; advisors run small practices with remarkable files. Many of them will never reach 50 full-time employees, and some hold exactly the kind of deep, original records a screening page describes. Funding status does not move any of them across the line.
Two published sentences that point different ways
Read both before saying anything to a founder.
| Where | What it says | What a partner can safely conclude |
|---|---|---|
| Program terms, section 1 | Introduced companies must meet the SourceX sourcing criteria, including 50 or more full-time employees at peak | An introduction of a smaller company is outside the standard terms |
| Who-qualifies page | Roughly 50 or more full-time employees at peak and several years in operation; some programs set higher thresholds, and smaller specialists can still be considered | SourceX may look at a smaller company, on criteria it has not published |
| Program terms, section 8 | An expressly agreed, signed addendum may override the relevant provisions | A different arrangement for one company would need to be agreed in writing |
So "considered" and "reward-eligible" are two different questions, and only SourceX can answer either. The 50 is not arbitrary prestige: SourceX's note on small businesses explains it as a filter on record density, since more people across more functions leave more connected records. An exception inquiry has to show why a particular small company is dense anyway.
Who is the company, and how many full-time employees does it really have?
Specialists often have unusual shapes, and the shape decides the answer to the size question before anyone reaches the exception.
The operating entity. Name the legal entity that employs the people and holds the records, and its current controller. A specialist unit inside a larger group is not a small company if the group entity holds the records and can sign; a boutique split into several small LLCs is not a large one just because the LLCs share an owner. SourceX does not automatically add headcount across related companies; it looks at the entity that holds the records, owns the rights and can sign, as the note on sister companies explains. Under the program, that entity's CEO is the person who can authorize a licensing discussion.
The full-time count at peak. Contractors are excluded, and many specialists run on them. A firm with 30 employees on payroll and 40 long-term contractors is a 30-person company for this test, however integrated the contractors feel. Whether those contractors are correctly classified is a separate, tax-law question: the IRS says the usual common-law rules apply for federal employment tax purposes, weighing behavioral control, financial control and the relationship of the parties. That question belongs to the company and its advisers. The partner records what payroll shows, with its month, as the full-time count note describes. Who owns the work contractors produced is another question again, covered in contractor work ownership.
The exception inquiry brief
One page, ten fields, metadata only. It goes to SourceX before any introduction and before the company's name is shared, unless the CEO has agreed to share it.
| Field | Write | Never include |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Size facts | Full-time employees at peak and its month; current full-time; contractors as a separate number | Contractors added to the full-time count |
| 2. The specialty | The one workflow or domain where the records are unusual, in a sentence | "Niche market" with nothing behind it |
| 3. Record depth | Years covered, system types, rough volume band, whether decisions and outcomes are recorded | Samples, screenshots or exports |
| 4. Whose records | Created by the company itself, or held for clients | Client names or client documents |
| 5. Location and language | Country and the main language of the records | A guess presented as a fact |
| 6. Entity and controller | Legal entity, its CEO, any group structure | The fund's ownership as if it were control |
| 7. CEO awareness | Whether the CEO knows about this inquiry and agreed to it | An inquiry the CEO knows nothing about |
| 8. Prior contact | Whether the company has applied to or corresponded with SourceX | Silence on what you were told |
| 9. The two questions | Would SourceX consider this company for a current program? Would an introduction count under the terms, or need a written arrangement? | A request to "fast-track" |
| 10. What you told the CEO | Usually that the company may be a fit and nothing is decided | Any figure for what the company could earn |
Field 2 carries the case. Our own test of whether a specialty argument is worth sending has four parts, none of them published by SourceX: the workflow is rare in the wider economy; the company has done it for many years; its records capture decisions and outcomes, not just documents; and the volume is concentrated in that one workflow. "Twelve years of failure-analysis reports authored in house, each with the method, the finding and the client's later decision" passes all four. "We have lots of data and AI is hot in our sector" passes none.
Method note. The ten fields follow SourceX's program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), its who-qualifies and contact pages and the IRS description of the common-law test, all checked 2026-10-26. The four-part specialty test is our framework for deciding whether an inquiry is worth SourceX's time; it is not a SourceX criterion and has not been tested against outcomes. SourceX has not published how often smaller specialists are considered or accepted.
Four routes once the brief is filled
The brief usually makes the route obvious.
| Route | When it fits | What the CEO hears | Reward position |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Hold | Full-time headcount is close to 50 and still growing | "Not yet; I'll look again when you pass 50 full-time" | None until the company meets the criteria and is introduced |
| B. Exception inquiry first | Field 2 passes our four-part test and the CEO agreed to the inquiry | "I've asked SourceX a general question; nothing is decided" | Open until SourceX answers in writing |
| C. The company applies on its own | The CEO wants to explore now and you have no basis for an inquiry | "You can start a company assessment at sourcex.si/apply yourself" | Do not expect one; the size criterion is unchanged |
| D. Close | Smallness comes with another published exclusion, such as client-owned records | "This isn't a fit for what SourceX looks for, because the records are your clients'" | None |
Route B is the only one with an exception in it, and even there the inquiry asks; it does not argue. If SourceX says a company would be considered, that is still not acceptance: review, rights and program match come afterward, as for any company. If SourceX says an introduction would not count under the terms, the partner can still help the CEO through route C with no reward expected, or step back entirely.
Mandate, language and history still apply in full
An exception, if SourceX grants one, is about size. Everything else stays where it was.
- Program fit. SourceX applies the criteria of the specific program, not one universal minimum, and some programs set higher thresholds than the baseline. A specialist that clears the size question for one program can still fall short of another's.
- Language. 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 specialist does not get a second exception for its records' language.
- History. Several years in operation is the screening baseline. A two-year-old spin-out of a famous lab is young, however expert its team.
- Rights. Specialist firms often produce work for clients. Material that belongs to clients rather than the company is usually not a fit, and that is the most common reason a promising specialist closes at route D.
Three specialists, three routes (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Generic companies, invented facts, no outcome implied.
| Fact | Case 1: marine survey firm | Case 2: tax controversy boutique | Case 3: lab-automation integrator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time at peak | 47, in March 2024 | 28 | 46, today, hiring monthly |
| Contractors | 12 surveyors | 4 | 2 |
| Specialty records | 19 years of its own survey methods, QA findings and training files | Client files and correspondence | Six years of commissioning and fault logs from its own projects |
| Whose records | The firm's own | Mostly the clients' | The firm's, with some client sign-offs |
| CEO aware | Yes, agreed to an inquiry | Yes, keen | Yes |
| Route | B: exception inquiry sent, company unnamed | D: closed | A: hold until full-time passes 50 |
Case 2 is the explicit rejection. Its founder is enthusiastic and the practice is respected, but two things fail at once: it is well below the baseline and most of its records belong to its clients. No inquiry is sent, because SourceX has already published the answer to the second point. Case 1 is the one route B exists for: close to the line, a specialty that passes all four parts of our test, its own records, and a CEO who agreed to a general question. Case 3 needs no exception at all; it needs patience and a dated trigger.
Limits of the exception route
- SourceX may simply say no. "Smaller specialists can still be considered" describes a possibility, not a process, and criteria for it have not been published.
- The reward may not follow. The terms tie introduced-company eligibility to the sourcing criteria including the size baseline, and the published default does not describe an exception. Assume no reward unless SourceX confirms otherwise in writing.
- Record density is a real objection. SourceX's own reasoning for the baseline is that more people leave more connected records. A small firm can be deep in one workflow and still too thin across systems.
- The CEO's time is spent either way. Even a well-framed inquiry asks a founder to think about licensing. Route C or a plain "not now" can be kinder.
- The two statements may be reconciled later. If SourceX changes either page, rescreen every row parked on route B. The portfolio company screening workbook is the natural place to keep those rows and their dates.
To learn whether specialists in your network are worth this effort, run the brief on the next five sub-50 companies a founder or LP suggests, send inquiries only for those that pass the four-part test, and record SourceX's answers. Five answers will tell you more than any rule of thumb.
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.
For a specialist below the baseline, write the brief before anything else, then register for a partner link, recheck the company against who qualifies and read the program terms so you know exactly which question you are asking SourceX. More portfolio methods are in the guides library.
Anyone assessing SourceX as a possible investment is on a different path from the referral program, and investor materials are requested 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.