The reason to stop is practical. A portfolio team that asks for documents has started diligence: it now holds paper it cannot interpret, it has signaled to a founder that something is being evaluated, and it has spent a favor before the CEO has even agreed to talk. Screening has to come before any founder email, newsletter mention or introduction, and funding status settles none of it. A company the fund has backed for six years and a company it has never invested in face the same questions.
Which company runs the business, and who controls it today?
Two facts need separating before anything else. The entity a fund invested in is often a holding company or a parent incorporated for the financing. The entity that employs people and keeps years of operating records is the operating company. Introductions are about the second one, so the first question always asks for it by name.
Control is the second fact. Record who holds a majority or otherwise controls the operating company, and when that was last true. Public registers help unevenly:
- United Kingdom. Companies House guidance defines a person with significant control to include anyone holding, directly or indirectly, more than one quarter of a company's shares or more than one quarter of its voting rights. The register shows who crosses those thresholds; it does not show who can approve a licensing discussion.
- United States. There is no federal register to check. FinCEN's March 2025 interim final rule exempted companies created in the United States from beneficial ownership reporting, and a final rule effective August 14, 2026 made the exemption permanent. For a U.S. company, the founder's dated answer is usually the best evidence a partner has.
Ownership of the company is a different question from ownership of its records. A company keeps its records when it licenses them under an agreement, as the guide to keeping ownership of data when licensing explains. The intake asks about both, but only at the level of a sentence.
The five-question ownership intake
Ask in this order. Each question either moves the company forward, parks it with a dated reason or stops it.
| # | Ask it like this | A usable answer contains | Stop or reroute when |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Which company actually employs the team and keeps the records?" | The operating company's legal name, its country and its rough full-time headcount at peak | The answer is a fund vehicle or holding company with no operations of its own: ask again for the operating company |
| 2 | "Who controls that company today, and since when?" | The majority holder or group parent, with a month and year | A sale, merger or recapitalization is pending: mark the row Later and note the expected month |
| 3 | "Does the CEO know we are discussing this, and would they want a conversation?" | The CEO's name and one of yes, no or not yet asked | The CEO says no: record "owner declined" and stop. Two 50/50 owners, a trustee or court control: note it, since the CEO alone may not be enough |
| 4 | "Are the main records the company's own, or mostly its clients'?" | Mostly own, mostly clients', mixed or unknown, plus the system that holds them | Mostly clients': usually not a fit, so stop unless the company also keeps substantial records of its own |
| 5 | "Is anything in the next 90 days likely to change these answers?" | A named event and month, or "nothing known" | An earlier license of the same records for AI training, an investor consent right or a planned carve-out: hand it to SourceX's review instead of interpreting it |
Ninety days in question 5 is deliberate: it matches the program's attribution window, in which the first valid introduction is credited once the company submits a verified application. A change of control inside that window can change who decides and who should introduce. "Unknown" is a legitimate answer to any question. Record it and move on rather than chasing a document.
Where you stop: the diligence line
Everything below is real work, and none of it is the introducer's.
| Leave this out | Why it is not an intake question | Who handles it |
|---|---|---|
| Cap table, shareholder or share purchase agreements | Control is a fact you can state; proving it is review work | SourceX's review and the company's counsel |
| Customer contracts and privacy notices | Rights to license turn on clauses an introducer cannot interpret | SourceX's rights review and the company's counsel |
| Record samples, exports, screenshots and logins | Partners never handle a company's records, even to be helpful | Nobody on the partner side, at any stage |
| What the records might earn | Payouts are not estimated before review, and a partner's guess becomes an anchor | SourceX and the company, after review |
| Board resolutions on signing authority | The CEO authorizes a licensing discussion and signs for the company, with the exceptions in question 3 | The company and SourceX |
If you find yourself needing a sixth question, the intake has done its job. Either the CEO wants a conversation, in which case the introduction lets SourceX ask, or the row waits. The company system ownership checklist is a resource for the company's own team once it is in that conversation, not a partner worksheet.
Mandate, language and history checks
Ownership is one gate. Three published checks sit beside it, and the intake's first answer usually settles them:
- Size. 50+ full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded. For a staffing firm, only its own full-time employees count, not placed workers on assignment at clients; describe both numbers and introduce the firm anyway when its records are strong. The peak headcount note covers edge cases.
- History. Several years of documented operations, kept by the company itself.
- Location and 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.
These are a baseline, not a mandate decision. SourceX applies the criteria of the specific program, some programs set higher thresholds, smaller specialists can still be considered, and relevance to current data needs is checked in review. The intake routes a company; it never accepts one.
Three intakes, one rejected (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Generic companies and invented answers; no outcomes implied.
| Case | Operating company and control (Q1, Q2) | CEO aware (Q3) | Records (Q4) | Next 90 days (Q5) | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 230-person U.S. HVAC services group, majority-owned by a co-investor's fund since 2019 | Yes, wants a call | Mostly own: 11 years of work orders | Nothing known | Introduce; SourceX decides fit in review |
| B | 120-person payroll bureau, founder-controlled | Yes | Mostly clients': payroll records it processes for employers | Nothing known | Rejected: not introduced |
| C | 90-person dental lab group, sale to a larger group signed, closing expected in February | Not yet asked | Mostly own | Change of control | Later: ask the acquirer's CEO after closing |
Case A passes the published baseline on size, history, location and an aware CEO, so the decision is to introduce, not to accept. Case B is the explicit rejection. The bureau is large, old and willing, and still fails at question 4: material that belongs to a company's clients is usually not a fit, and nothing about the bureau's size changes that. The row records the reason and no revisit trigger, because the obstacle is structural. Case C is not rejected. Its CEO will soon answer to a new owner, which is the subject of the guide to assessing a company that recently changed ownership.
Route uncertain answers without implying acceptance
What you say after the intake matters as much as the questions. Three phrasings keep it honest:
- "From what you've told me, this looks worth a conversation. SourceX decides fit in its own review."
- "The records sound like your clients', which usually rules it out. I'd rather tell you now than waste your time."
- "Let's revisit after the sale closes; the new owner's CEO would need to want this."
Avoid "you qualify", "pre-approved" and any number. Whoever submits must first sign the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement, and only one partner is credited per company, so agree inside the fund who owns each relationship before the founder hears about it. The portfolio company screening workbook holds the rows once you have more than a handful.
Where this intake can mislead you
- Self-reported control. Founders misremember group structures and dates. With no U.S. federal beneficial ownership register for domestic companies since FinCEN's 2025 rule, there is often nothing public to cross-check.
- Register thresholds. The UK register shows holders above the one-quarter threshold, not every party with consent rights, and not who can approve a licensing discussion.
- Changing criteria. SourceX's program requirements differ by size, history, geography, language and category, so a company one program turns away can still suit a different program down the line. A dated "no" can expire.
- Rights are opinions at this stage. Question 4 captures what the founder believes. SourceX's rights review decides.
- Relationship cost. Even five questions spend a founder's time. No data on founder reactions to ownership questions has been published; record your own.
Methods note. The five questions were derived on 2026-10-26 from SourceX's published program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), its who-qualifies page, the owner's decision that the CEO authorizes, and the public register rules cited above. The intake has not been timed or tested for accuracy, and SourceX has not published how often intake answers match review outcomes. To measure it, log each intake's five answers, then compare them with the review outcome category once known; report the share of rows where question 2 or 4 was later found wrong, with every row counted.
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 a row holds five dated answers and the CEO has asked to talk, register for a partner link, run the row past who qualifies one final time and read the program terms before anything is sent. Platform teams can see the wider program on the venture platform overview.
Evaluating SourceX itself as a company is a separate decision from referring one; investor materials are available on request 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.