The rule, exactly as SourceX publishes it: 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 90% of the data is in English.
"Global fit" is three different answers
| Group | Where | Language condition | What you can say before checking anything else |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Location qualifies | The U.S., Canada and the 27 EU member states | None in the published rule, though a program may prefer a language | "Your location is covered; size, history, rights and your CEO decide the rest." |
| 2. Qualifies at 90% English | The UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia | At least 90% of the data in English | "Your location is covered if at least 90% of the data you would offer is in English." |
| 3. Not on the published list | Everywhere else, for example Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Japan and the Philippines | Not applicable until SourceX says otherwise | "I need to check with SourceX before suggesting this." |
Three edges of the table catch portfolio teams. The EU's own list of member states has 27 countries, and Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are not among them, so a Zurich or Oslo company sits in group 3 even if the fund files it under "Europe". The UK is not on that list either; the published rule names it in group 2. And Latin America appears as a region without a country list, so confirm a borderline case, such as a Caribbean territory, with SourceX rather than assuming.
Group 3 means unpublished, not refused. SourceX's who-qualifies page says programs differ in geography and language, and that falling outside one program's criteria does not close the door on a later one. What group 3 rules out is promotion: nobody should hear "you're eligible" from a fund on the strength of a guess.
Which entity, which records, which country
Portfolio companies rarely sit in one country. Before sorting, write down three facts for each: the operating entity whose systems hold the records, the country where those records were created, and who controls that entity today, including its CEO. Typical patterns look like a Delaware-incorporated software company whose support team works from Bengaluru, an Amsterdam parent whose claims processing runs in Cape Town, or a Texas services firm with a back office in Monterrey.
The published rule does not say how a group spanning two country groups is treated. Note both countries, flag the row and let SourceX decide in review; do not resolve the question in the company's favor in a pitch. For the reward, a parent company and its subsidiaries count as one company, with one cap across the whole group. The CEO authorizes a licensing discussion, so the attestation below is prepared by the CEO's team and approved by the CEO, and it reaches the CEO through whoever holds that relationship at the fund. For EU portfolio entities specifically, the EU eligibility guide separates the screening questions from the legal ones.
The language coverage attestation prompt
Send these five lines to the company's operations or data lead through the relationship owner. The company fills them in from its own counts. You receive the completed lines and nothing else.
- Records in scope. The records we would consider offering come from these systems: ______ (system names and record types only).
- Where they were made. They were created by these entities, in these countries: ______.
- How we counted. Our counting unit was ___ (records, messages, documents or words), and mixed-language items were counted as ___.
- What we found. From a sample of ___ items drawn across years and teams, the English share is % for each system and ___% overall.
- Who stands behind it. Prepared by ___ (role) on ___ (date). Approved by our CEO: yes / no.
Each line closes a specific gap.
- Line 1 ties the figure to what would actually be offered. A share computed on a system the company would never license says nothing about the one it would.
- Line 2 surfaces mixed groups early, so the question reaches SourceX before a pitch does.
- Line 3 exists because the published rule states a threshold and not a unit. Records, words and messages can give different shares for the same archive, so the unit has to be named.
- Line 4 keeps the system-level figures. An overall 91% that hides one system at 70% is a different answer from four systems that each clear 90%.
- Line 5 puts the figure in the company's name. It is the company's estimate; the share that counts is the one SourceX confirms on the dataset actually offered.
Geography predicts the answer badly. South Africa's Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Act of 2023 amends section 6 so that the Constitution lists twelve official languages, and a Johannesburg company whose website is in English may keep call notes that are not. The attestation asks the question that settles it instead of inferring from a website. For the arithmetic of a system-by-system inventory, use the English-language eligibility guide; for making a figure reproducible, SourceX's language coverage audit sets out the sampling method; the qualitative English-documentation guide covers early signals. This page covers the step before all three: whether the program should be raised at all.
Reading the completed lines.
| Attestation shows | Route |
|---|---|
| Group 1 location; language lines left blank | Screen the other tests, and note the main language of the records, since a program may prefer one |
| Group 2; every in-scope system at or above 90% | Continue the screen; if it passes, ask whether the CEO wants a conversation |
| Group 2; overall at or above 90% only after dropping a system the company would offer | Hold; the honest scope includes that system |
| Group 2; below 90% on the honest scope | Do not promote; tell the company the published threshold and stop |
| Mixed country groups, or any group 3 entity | Send the question to SourceX first |
| No CEO approval on line 5 | Wait; an unapproved figure is not an answer |
Language is one gate; four others still decide
Clearing 90% English settles location and nothing more. The four other gates are a peak full-time headcount of 50+ with contractors left out, a documented operating history, the right to license the records and a CEO who wants the conversation, and beyond them the records must match a current SourceX program.
The rejection most international portfolios will meet is an outsourcer. A Bengaluru customer-support outsourcer can attest 98% English and still fail, because SourceX's published screening treats material that belongs to the company's clients as usually not a fit, and transcripts of calls handled for clients may well belong to those clients. Language was never its problem.
A six-company portfolio, sorted (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Fictional companies and attestation figures, sorted with the method above.
| Company (Illustrative) | Operating entity's country | Group | Attestation | Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 300-person freight audit firm | U.S. (Ohio) | 1 | Not needed | Screen the other tests; ask the CEO through the board seat |
| 140-person engineering consultancy | Netherlands | 1 | Records mostly in Dutch | Location covered; note the language for SourceX |
| 220-person customer-support outsourcer | India | 2 | 98% English, but transcripts belong to clients | Rejected: client-owned records |
| 90-person property services company | UAE | 2 | 81% English on the honest scope | Do not promote; below the threshold |
| 160-person logistics software company | Switzerland | 3 | Not requested | Ask SourceX before any mention |
| 60-person accounting services firm | South Africa | 2 | 93% and 95% in two systems; CEO approved | Continue; the CEO wants a conversation |
A slide calling all six "global fit" would have overstated four of them: one rejection on rights, one below the threshold, one outside the published list and one whose language needs flagging. Two can move ahead, each still subject to the rest of the screen.
Method note. The three groups come verbatim from SourceX's published geography sentence and from the EU's own member list, both checked 2026-10-26. The attestation records what a company reports about its own records. It does not measure record quality, demand for the records or the company's rights, and it does not replace SourceX's measurement on the dataset actually offered.
Where a language screen goes wrong
- Self-reported shares drift upward. Small samples, a single year or a convenient counting unit flatter the figure. Lines 3 and 4 make that visible; SourceX's measurement in review is what counts.
- The rule is dated. The terms carry a version number (2026-10-22.2 on the date this page was checked) and the who-qualifies page carries its own update date. Re-check both before reusing an old sort.
- English is not the only language question. Group 1 companies face no English condition in the published rule, but SourceX's programs differ by language, so a Dutch-language archive can suit one program and not another.
- Local law is not your screen. Privacy, employment and contract rules in each country affect what can be licensed. They belong to SourceX's rights review with the company and its counsel, not to a fund's sort.
Partners based outside the U.S. can read the guide for global partners, and internationally owned portfolios have their own overview for international private equity. Platform teams can start from the venture platform overview or the guides hub. Whether non-English documentation can ever be considered is answered on the non-English documentation page.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
When an entity sits in group 1, or in group 2 with a CEO-approved attestation at or above 90% on the honest scope, register for a partner link, confirm the rest of the screen against who qualifies and read the program terms before anyone contacts the CEO.
Anyone at the fund looking at SourceX as a possible investment, rather than as somewhere to send portfolio companies, should treat that as separate diligence and 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.