Three outcomes rather than a score, because a score breeds a fourth outcome nobody owns: the "maybe" list that grows every quarter. The rubric applies equally to a funded portfolio company, an LP-owned distributor and a portfolio company's largest customer, since funding status is not one of the program's tests. Screen before anyone promotes the program: a founder who reads about it in a newsletter and then fails the size test has been turned down for something they never asked for.
What a yes, a no and a later each commit you to
| Verdict | It means | What the relationship owner may say | What nobody says | What you record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Every rubric row passes on facts dated this quarter, and the CEO knows about and wants a conversation | "You appear to meet the published criteria; SourceX decides fit in its review" | "You qualify" or "SourceX will license this" | The facts, their dates, the CEO's name and who will submit |
| No | One row fails on a fact this program will not look past | One reason in one sentence, tied to a published criterion | Anything about the company's quality or value | The failing row and where the fact came from |
| Later | A row fails on a fact that can change, or a row is still unknown | What would reopen the question, and roughly when | "Almost there" or "should be fine" | The trigger, a check date and the person who checks |
A later with no date is a no that nobody wants to deliver. Give every later a check date no more than two quarters away; on that date, score it again or close it as "not pursuing".
Which company are you actually screening?
Three entity mistakes are common in venture networks, and each spoils every row after it.
- Brand versus legal entity. The fund holds shares in a holding company, while the records and the payroll that sets peak headcount sit in an operating subsidiary. Screen the entity that holds the records and employs the people.
- A controller who changed. A signed sale, a sponsor buying a majority or a founder stepping aside changes who authorizes. Under the program the person who authorizes licensing talks and signs is the CEO: the CEO in office now, not the founder you remember from the seed round.
- A group with several entities. For the reward, a parent and all its subsidiaries are treated as one company, so the USD 50,000 floor applies once, to the group's first qualifying transaction, however many entities license; later qualifying transactions first agreed within the 12-month Repeat Window pay 15%. Note the group before the first introduction, not after the second. The subsidiary referral reward guide shows how to map one.
Write the entity line as four dated fields: legal name, registration number, controlling owner and CEO. For a UK company, GOV.UK's guidance requires companies to identify their people with significant control, for example anyone holding more than one in four of the shares or voting rights, and the register can be searched publicly, so the controller can be checked rather than remembered. Elsewhere, ask the relationship owner or the CEO and date the answer. An undated controller makes the verdict a later.
The three-outcome screening rubric
Score each row from facts the company or its relationship owner already knows, without files or samples. A company gets Yes only when every row reads Yes. A single No anywhere makes the verdict No, recorded with that one reason. Anything else is Later, with the open row named.
| Test | Yes when | Later when | No when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak full-time headcount | 50 or more full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded, even if the company is smaller today | Peak below 50 and still growing, or the count is unknown | Never on headcount alone; see the note below |
| Operating history | Several years of the company's own records in systems it controls | Records exist but their span or retention is unknown | The only asset is a one-off file with no documentation or context |
| Rights | The company created the material and nobody knows of a contract that stops it licensing | A customer or partner contract may limit reuse, which SourceX's rights review will read | The material belongs to the company's clients, or is personal consumer data or scraped data |
| Location and language | Located where the program operates, with the English-share rule met where it applies | Located in a listed country, English share not yet known | Located outside the listed countries, or under 70% English where that rule applies |
| Authorization | The CEO knows about the introduction and wants the conversation | The relationship owner has not asked the CEO yet | The CEO has declined |
| Prior contact with SourceX | The company knows of no earlier application, account or correspondence | The company is unsure whether anyone there has written to SourceX | The company already applied or is in talks, so it continues with SourceX directly and no partner is credited |
The location rule, word for word: 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.
Why headcount is never a No. The terms require 50 or more full-time employees at peak, so a smaller company cannot be introduced today. But headcount grows, and SourceX's screening page notes that smaller specialists can still be considered in some programs. Record a later with the trigger "peak full-time headcount passes 50", and put any proposed exception to SourceX in writing before the founder hears of it; the smaller specialist guide covers that route.
Rows you never score. Program match, license scope and price are decided in SourceX's review; a rubric that guesses them grades your guesses.
Rulings already made, so nobody has to ask
Four questions that used to stall reviews now have a current program answer. Apply them as written alongside the terms published on 22 October 2026 (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04).
| Question | Current answer | Effect on the verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Does fund ownership authorize an introduction? | No. Only the sitting CEO can authorize a licensing discussion and sign | The authorization row stays Later until the CEO has been asked |
| Do a staffing firm's placed workers count toward 50? | No. Only the firm's own full-time employees count, and SourceX still considers staffing firms whose records are strong | Report internal headcount and the placed workforce separately; strong records keep the firm in play |
| Are a parent and its subsidiaries one company or several? | One company for the reward, so the USD 50,000 floor applies once to the group | Screen the entity that holds the records and record the group |
| What if two owners split control 50/50, or a trustee or court controls the company? | The CEO alone may not be enough | Later, with the question sent to SourceX |
Three tests that flip a verdict most often: program match, English share and years of records
Program match. SourceX applies each program's own criteria rather than one universal minimum, so a company that misses one program's criteria today may meet a different program's criteria later. A Yes therefore means "meets the published baseline", and every No carries its date.
English share. Outside the U.S., Canada and the EU the rule is at least 70% of the data in English. Ask the CEO in bands: "nearly all English" passes, "mixed" is a No under the current rule, and "mostly" or "not sure" is a Later with the question attached. The English-language eligibility guide covers mixed-language records.
Years of records. History means the company's own records across several years, not its age: a 15-year-old company that changed systems in 2024 and kept nothing may hold two years. Peak headcount counts too, so a company that peaked at 70 and employs 40 today passes the size row. The portfolio operations review screen reads both from data a platform team already holds.
Three verdicts, written up (Illustrative)
Illustrative: generic companies and invented facts, with no outcome implied.
Yes. A 130-person commercial HVAC services company, majority-owned by a family office that is one of the fund's LPs. Peak full-time headcount 150 in 2023; eleven years of work orders and technician notes in its own field-service system; customer contracts silent on service records; based in Ohio. The family-office principal asked the founder-CEO, who wants a call. Verdict note: Yes, 26 October 2026. All six rows pass. CEO informed and willing. Submitter: the principal, who has signed the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement.
Later. A 74-person logistics software company in the portfolio has signed an agreement to be acquired by a 900-person group, with closing expected in the first quarter of 2027. Its size and records pass, but the controller is changing and the CEO who will authorize after closing has not been named. Verdict note: Later. Trigger: closing completed and the group's CEO confirmed. Check date: 31 March 2027. Checker: the board partner. After closing, the group counts as one company for the reward, so the once-per-company floor applies to the group.
No, the rejected case. A 260-person IT outsourcing provider held by a co-investor's fund. Its ticket history lives inside each client's own service-desk tenant, and its standard contract makes client data, and the runbooks written for each client, the client's property. Verdict note: No, 26 October 2026. Reason: the operating records discussed belong to the company's clients, which SourceX's screening page lists as usually not a fit. Not judged: the company's quality or any dataset it owns outright. Revisit: none planned; reopen only if the CEO identifies records the company itself owns. Delivered by: the co-investor's partner, by phone.
That no is deliberate. It names one reason, says what it does not judge and gives the only condition that would reopen it. The mandate rejection guide has wording for the call itself.
Routing a no or a later without sounding like a yes
The verdict goes to the relationship owner first, never straight to the company from someone its CEO does not know.
- Yes. The relationship owner tells the CEO that the company appears to meet the published criteria, that SourceX decides fit, and that the introducer may receive a referral reward, paid separately by SourceX and never deducted from the company's payout. The agreed submitter, with a signed Channel Partner Agreement, then submits.
- No. The relationship owner gives one reason and stops there. Nobody forwards the rubric to the company; a table of failed rows reads as a verdict on the business.
- Later. The relationship owner learns the trigger and the date. The company hears nothing unless it asked, and if it asked, it hears the trigger.
- A question only SourceX can answer. Program relevance, a contract's effect on rights, a proposed exception or a 50/50 ownership split goes to SourceX before any introduction, and the written answer stays with the row. No company hears "probably" while it is open.
Where a three-outcome rubric goes wrong
- It ages. Criteria differ by program and fit can change, so last year's No can be this year's Yes. Undated verdicts turn into folklore.
- It tempts partners into rights calls. Client-owned material and personal consumer data are clear Nos. A murkier case, such as a customer contract nobody has read closely, belongs to SourceX's rights review; marking it No loses a company SourceX might have taken.
- Controllers move. Recheck the entity line on the day you submit, not only on the day you screened.
- A Yes measures the baseline, not the opportunity. It says nothing about demand for the records, their quality or any price, all of which SourceX checks in review.
- Nobody has published hit rates. SourceX has not published how many screened companies it accepts, so a count of Yes verdicts forecasts nothing about rewards.
Method note. The rubric's rows come from the program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04, checked 26 October 2026), SourceX's screening page (updated 20 October 2026) and the program rulings listed above. It does not measure demand, record quality, price, acceptance rates or reward, which are either decided in review or not published. For a spreadsheet version of the same facts, start from the portfolio company screening workbook and add a verdict column.
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.
When a company reads Yes on every row and its CEO wants the call, register for a partner link, recheck each dated fact on who qualifies and go through the program terms before the relationship owner makes the introduction.
Screening companies for introduction is one decision and assessing SourceX itself as a possible investment is another; fund partners weighing the second can request 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.