A larger advertised number does not establish larger expected earnings. It establishes that one program chose to print a larger number.
Ceiling, flat amount or floor: what the headline number is
Two company-data referral programs, read from their own pages (micro1 on 2026-10-26, SourceX under its terms dated 2026-11-04), show how different two headlines can be.
| Program | Headline as published | What kind of number it is | What sits behind it |
|---|---|---|---|
| SourceX | Earn $1,500,000+ | A floor rather than a ceiling: a company's first qualifying transaction pays at least USD 50,000, once per company, and nothing caps a transaction, a company or the total | the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of the Actual Supplier Payout, the compensation SourceX actually pays the company, on a first qualifying transaction of at least USD 100,000; further transactions first agreed within 12 months pay 15% |
| micro1 enterprise data partnerships | $50K+ | A stated amount with a path upward: its company-referral page describes $50K for deals up to $700,000 and 7.5% of deal value above that | Companies with 30+ employees in the US and Western markets; no bonus for registration or signing alone, since data must be transferred and approved first; its referral terms set 7.5% of the total license or purchase price paid to the company where no payout is specified |
Side by side, $1,500,000+ looks like thirty times $50K+. Read as kinds of number, the comparison changes shape: one is a floor-and-percentage formula with no ceiling, where the large figure needs a large payout behind it, and the other is described as a set amount up to a deal-size threshold with a percentage above it. Neither tells you what your clients would trigger, because both depend on deals neither program forecasts. The definitions and full conditions sit in each program's own terms; read them there before relying on this summary, and see the fuller SourceX and micro1 comparison.
Two existing guides go deeper on the money mechanics alone: why the calculation base matters more than the cap, and a twelve-field scorecard for AI data referral programs. This page adds the half those leave out: whether the program fits your firm and your clients at all.
The client problem and the role each program hands you
Every referral program solves a specific client problem, and asks the referrer to play a specific part in solving it. Compare those before any terms.
| Role | What the firm does | Example | What it asks of the firm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introducer | Recognizes a client that may fit, asks the CEO, introduces and steps back | A company-data referral such as SourceX's | One conversation per client, plus tracking |
| Co-seller | Builds demand, plans sales and shares leads with the vendor | Microsoft describes co-selling this way, across categories that include working with its sales teams, partner-to-partner deals and private deals | Sales capacity and pipeline reporting |
| Reseller | Buys and resells, and owns the customer relationship | Set out in referral partner versus reseller | Contracts, support and credit risk |
The two participation models most advisory firms weigh are the first two. An introducer's client problem is something the client already has, such as years of operating records it did not know could be licensed. A co-seller's problem is partly the vendor's: a pipeline to fill. A firm whose promise is independent advice usually finds the introducer role easier to square with clients, and the co-seller role easier to price.
The terms-and-fit comparison rubric
Ten lines, each scored 0, 1 or 2, in two halves that are never added together. The headline number is written in a note beside the score and never scored.
| Line | Question | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 Base | What is the percentage taken from? | Not published | A price or "deal value" without a definition | A defined amount actually paid, such as what the referred company receives |
| T2 Number type and scope | Is the headline a ceiling, a flat amount or a floor, and per what? | A number with no scope | Type or scope stated, not both | Type and scope both written |
| T3 Trigger and deadline | What makes the reward payable, and by when? | Undefined | Event named, no deadline | Event and deadline written |
| T4 Attribution | How is credit decided between introducers? | Not written | A window or a rule, not both | Window, tie rule and what counts as an existing relationship |
| T5 Reductions and versions | What if the deal shrinks, and how do the terms change? | Silent | One of the two written | Both written, with dated versions |
| F1 Clients above the bar | How many current clients meet the eligibility bar? | None you can name | One to four | Five or more |
| F2 Client problem | Do clients have the problem the program solves? | The need would have to be created | Some mention it | Clients raise it unprompted |
| F3 Role fit | Does the role match the firm's capacity and promise? | It needs selling the firm will not do | Workable with changes | Fits as it is |
| F4 Time to cash | How long from introduction to payable reward, and can progress be seen? | Unknown and invisible | Long, but tracked through statuses | Short and tracked |
| F5 Client-trust cost | What does taking part cost in client trust? | Conflicts with a client promise or a professional rule | Needs disclosure and consent | Disclosure only |
WorkableTwo gates. A zero on F1 or F5 means decline, whatever the terms score. A program no client can use, or one that breaks a promise, is not improved by better paperwork.
Reading the two halves.
| Terms (T1 to T5) | Fit (F1 to F5) | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| 7 to 10 | 7 to 10 | Pilot with a handful of clients and a review date |
| 7 to 10 | 3 to 6 | Keep it small: introduce only when a client's situation calls for it |
| 0 to 6 | 7 to 10 | Ask for written terms before any introduction |
| 0 to 6 | 3 to 6 | Decline |
One consultancy scores two offers (Illustrative)
Illustrative. A 30-person operations consultancy with 60 active clients compares the SourceX data referral, scored from its published terms, with an invented referral offer from a practice-management software vendor. The client counts and the software offer are fictional.
| Line | SourceX data referral | Software referral offer (Illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| T1 Base | 2: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of the Actual Supplier Payout, defined in the terms | 1: 20% of "first-year contract value", undefined |
| T2 Number type and scope | 2: a floor, once per company, with no ceiling | 1: "up to" a figure, scope unstated |
| T3 Trigger and deadline | 2: acceptance, cleared buyer payment, supplier payment, finance approval and the partner's details; deadline 60 days after the later of final acceptance and handoff | 2: 30 days after the customer's first paid invoice |
| T4 Attribution | 2: 90-day window, first valid introduction, any earlier lead, account or email counts as existing | 1: a 60-day tracking cookie, no tie rule |
| T5 Reductions and versions | 2: reduction rule and dated versions with a change log | 0: silent on both |
| Terms score | 10 of 10 | 5 of 10 |
| F1 Clients above the bar | 1: 4 of 60 clients have 50+ full-time employees at peak | 2: 22 of 60 clients use this kind of software |
| F2 Client problem | 1: two clients mentioned old archives and AI | 2: clients ask about this tool |
| F3 Role fit | 2: introduce and step back | 1: the vendor expects joint demos |
| F4 Time to cash | 1: long and not forecastable, tracked from Estimated to Paid | 2: short and tracked |
| F5 Client-trust cost | 1: disclosure and consent | 1: disclosure and consent |
| Fit score | 6 of 10 | 8 of 10 |
| Headline, noted only | $1,500,000+, no cap | Up to $10,000 per customer |
The headline alone would have chosen SourceX by a factor of 150. The rubric says something more useful: the data referral has strong terms and thin fit, so the consultancy keeps it small and introduces the four larger clients only when their situation calls for it; the software offer has strong fit and thin terms, so the consultancy asks the vendor for written scope, attribution and reduction rules before introducing anyone.
Effort, trust and the economics no program publishes
Effort. An introducer's work is a conversation with the CEO, a disclosure note and a tracking row. A co-seller's work includes demand building and sales planning with the vendor. If the firm cannot staff the second, the co-sell program's terms do not matter.
Trust. Any paid introduction needs disclosure, and some professions restrict or condition referral compensation; the referral fee rules by profession summarize them. Score F5 from your own rules, not from the program's marketing.
Tracking claims. Attribution is unsettled even inside vendors with partner teams: in PartnerStack's survey with Wynter of 100 senior B2B SaaS leaders, only 42% used multi-touch attribution for partner revenue. An introducer should want the attribution rule in the written terms, which is why T4 asks for the window, the tie rule and what counts as an existing relationship.
Economics. For SourceX the arithmetic is fixed by the terms; the inputs are not.
| Client's first qualifying transaction payout (Illustrative) | Reward at the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap |
|---|---|
| $40,000 | None: below the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction unless SourceX agrees in writing |
| $250,000 | USD 62,500 |
| $800,000 | USD 120,000 |
These rows are arithmetic, not forecasts, quotes or completed deals; a further transaction with the same company first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pays 15% of its payout, with no floor and no cap. SourceX has not published conversion rates or typical payouts, and no program in the comparison publishes what share of introductions pays. Any spreadsheet that multiplies a headline by a guessed conversion rate ranks the guesses.
Pilot, keep small or decline, and the sentence that explains it
- Pilot when both halves score 7 or more and neither gate is zero. Name the clients, the review date and what would end the pilot.
- Keep small when terms are strong and fit is thin. Introduce only when a client raises the problem, and do not market the program.
- Ask for terms first when fit is strong and terms are thin. No introductions until base, scope, trigger, attribution and reductions are in writing.
- Decline when either gate is zero, or both halves are low. Revisit only when a line changes, such as new clients above the bar or rewritten terms.
Write the decision as one sentence a client could read: "We keep the data referral small because few of our clients fit, and we will review it when that changes." The business introduction program comparison lists the questions to ask any program before that sentence is written.
Which clients count on the fit side
For the SourceX line F1, count only clients that could plausibly fit: 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), years of records they created themselves, the rights to license them and a CEO who wants the conversation and can sign for the company. 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.
Count from what the firm already knows, at metadata level: headcount, the systems that hold records, how many years they cover and who administers them. Never ask for files or samples to improve a score. Whether a client's records match current demand, and whether its customer contracts allow reuse, stays unknown until SourceX reviews the company. More partner guides sit in the guides hub.
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.
If your rubric puts the SourceX program at pilot or keep-small and a client's CEO asks for the conversation, sign up for a partner link, measure that client against the who-qualifies page and score T1 to T5 yourself from the program terms.