The word "mandate" here means the criteria of the SourceX program a company is screened against. SourceX applies the criteria of the specific program, not one universal minimum, and its screening page says a company turned down under one program's criteria may still fit another program later. That is the honest basis for a respectful no: it is dated, and it is about criteria.
Whose no is it, and who should deliver it?
Three different rejections reach a founder, and each has its own author.
| Where the no came from | Who knows the reason | Who should tell the company | What the message may claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Your own screen, before any introduction | You, from what the company told you | The person who asked the CEO, usually you or the relationship owner | The published criterion and the fact that failed it |
| SourceX's review, after the company applied | SourceX and the company | The company's own correspondence with SourceX carries the reason; you follow up on the relationship only | Only what SourceX said, never your guess at the rest |
| The CEO declined to talk | The CEO | Nobody needs to; the row closes | Nothing |
The second row is where partners overstep. The program terms say partners never receive access to applicant documents, so a detailed explanation of a review outcome is usually speculation. Acknowledge it, point to SourceX's own message and keep your note about the relationship.
Address the message to the right person. The decision to talk sits with the CEO of the operating entity that holds the records. If the company was acquired after you first spoke, that is the acquirer's CEO, and the founder who still runs the team should not receive a rejection of a conversation the group never asked for.
Why one specific reason works better than a polite blur
Consumer credit offers a useful standard, borrowed rather than binding. Under Regulation B, a lender that turns down an applicant must give a statement of reasons that is specific and names the principal reasons; saying the decision rested on the creditor's internal standards or policies, or on failing to reach a qualifying score, is expressly insufficient. No such rule governs referral partners. The logic transfers anyway: "doesn't meet our criteria" is the referral version of "internal standards", and it tells a founder nothing they can act on.
A specific reason also does three jobs: it shows you looked, it separates the criterion from the company's worth ("below 50 full-time employees at peak" is a fact, not a verdict), and it makes a revisit trigger possible, because a reason you can name is a condition you can watch.
The respectful rejection and revisit templates
Each template has the same four parts, in the same order: reason, what it does not mean, what would change it, the door. Keep each part to one or two sentences. Replace the bracketed text; never add a forecast of what the company could earn.
Template 1: founder-CEO, below the size baseline, before any introduction.
Thanks for walking me through [company]. The reason I'm not putting you forward now is size: SourceX's current programs screen for 50 or more full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded, and you've told me your peak was [number] in [month, year]. That says nothing about the quality of your records; it's a threshold the programs set. If full-time headcount passes 50, I'd be glad to look again, and I'll raise it myself once your board updates show it. Until then, nothing has been submitted anywhere in your name.
Template 2: founder-CEO, records that belong to customers.
I looked at this with you and I don't think it should go forward. Most of what you described lives in your customers' tenants and belongs to them, and SourceX treats material owned by a company's clients as usually not a fit. That is about who owns the records, not about how well you run the product. If you build up substantial records of your own, such as support, implementation or QA history, the answer could be different, and you're welcome to raise it with me any time.
Template 3: closing the loop with a relationship owner who offered to ask a CEO.
Thank you for offering to raise this with [CEO name]. Before you did, I checked what we know against the published criteria, and [company] does not meet one of them: [reason]. Please don't raise it on my behalf. If [trigger] happens, I'll come back to you first, since the relationship is yours.
Template 4: after SourceX's review said no.
I saw that SourceX's review didn't find a match for [company] in its current programs. I don't see the review file, so their message to you is the one to rely on for the reasons. Their screening page says a company that doesn't fit one program may fit another later, so I'll keep your details on my list with today's date and won't raise it again unless something specific changes. Thanks for taking the time.
The revisit note. Every rejection leaves one internal line, filled the day the message goes out:
| Field | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Company and entity | Legal name of the entity that holds the records, and its CEO |
| Date and author of the no | The day, and whether it came from your screen or SourceX's review |
| Reason, in the published words | For example, "below 50 full-time employees at peak" |
| Revisit trigger | An observable event: headcount passes 50, a new system holds the company's own records, a new program covers the language |
| Who raises it again | The person who owns the CEO relationship |
| Earliest recheck | A date, so the row is not reopened on impulse |
Method note. The four-part structure and the templates are our own design, built on 2026-10-26 from SourceX's screening page and program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), with the specific-reason standard borrowed from Regulation B's adverse action notices. They have not been tested against founder responses. SourceX has not published how founders react to declined introductions; if you use the templates, log each reply as warm, neutral or cold so your own record exists.
Mandate, language and history reasons, each in one sentence
The reason sentence is where tone is won or lost. Each line pairs a sentence you can use with a phrase that tends to close the relationship.
| Reason | A sentence that keeps the door open | A phrase that closes it |
|---|---|---|
| Size | "Current programs screen for 50 or more full-time employees at peak, and your peak was 41." | "You're too small for this." |
| History | "The programs look for several years of the company's own records, and yours start in 2023." | "Come back when you're a real business." |
| Location or language | "Records in your market need to be at least 70% English for current programs, and yours are mostly Portuguese." | "They don't work with companies like yours." |
| Data type | "SourceX treats personal consumer data as usually not a fit, and that is most of what you hold." | "Strip the names out and try again." |
| Already known to SourceX | "Your company had already been in touch with SourceX, so it can carry on directly." | "Someone beat me to it." |
On location, the published rule is exact: 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 Brazilian company with mostly Portuguese records therefore fails the language test today, and a new program covering that language is the only trigger worth naming. The "strip the names out" phrase is worse than rude: it suggests the company reshape its records to pass a screen, which no partner should do.
One rejection, written three ways (Illustrative)
Illustrative. A generic company, invented facts, no outcome implied.
A seed-stage fund's newsletter mentions data licensing. The founder of a portfolio company, a two-year-old software business with 41 full-time employees at its peak, writes back the same afternoon asking to be introduced. The operations director checks the facts and must decline: the company is below the size baseline and its records start in 2023.
Version A, the blur. "Thanks so much, this one isn't quite the right fit for now, but let's stay in touch!" The founder cannot tell whether the fund looked, what failed or whether to ask again. It invites the founder to read it as a soft no to them personally.
Version B, the over-promise. "You're not there yet, but I'm sure we can get you in next year." This implies an acceptance nobody can give, sets a date nobody controls and makes the next conversation a disappointment.
Version C, the four parts. "Thanks for asking. I'm not putting [company] forward now because SourceX's current programs screen for 50 or more full-time employees at peak and several years of the company's own records; you're at 41, with records from 2023. Neither is a judgment of the business. When you pass 50 full-time and have a few more years of history, I'll look again, and I'll raise it at a board meeting rather than wait for you to chase me."
Version C is the only one the founder can act on. If they ask why size matters at all, the note on why startups rarely qualify gives the program-side reasoning.
Keep the revisit honest
A revisit trigger is a promise, so it has rules.
- Observable, not hopeful. "Full-time headcount passes 50" can be checked. "When things pick up" cannot.
- One person raises it. The relationship owner named in the revisit note, not whoever happens to notice.
- Rescreen from scratch. Programs and criteria may have moved since the first no.
- Old introductions do not hold credit. Under the terms, the only introduction that earns credit is the first valid one for a new company inside the 90-day attribution window, and it counts only after a verified application arrives from that company; the window does not extend. A revisit eighteen months later is a new introduction.
- No drip of check-ins. A quarterly "just checking in" email turns a respectful no into pressure.
If the company is winding down rather than growing, the useful message is different: point the CEO to SourceX's note on what records to keep when closing a business, because deleted archives remove any later option. For the earlier decision of whether to introduce at all, see introduce now or revisit later.
When the explanation itself goes wrong
- The reason expires. SourceX's requirements vary with its current data needs, and some programs set higher thresholds than the baseline. A reason recorded today may be wrong in a year; date it.
- You misstate SourceX's reason. Partners do not see applicant documents. Template 4 exists so you never invent a reason the review did not give. The guide to understanding a declined referral lists the categories SourceX uses.
- The founder hears a verdict anyway. A careful message can still land badly after a fund-wide announcement raised hopes; screening first, with the portfolio company screening workbook, avoids most of these messages.
- The borrowed standard has limits. Regulation B governs credit decisions, not referrals; it is cited for its reasoning only.
- Nothing here measures relationships. No data on how founders respond to declined introductions has been published; the rejection reasons study shows how to keep your own counts.
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 revisit trigger fires and the company's CEO wants the conversation, rescreen it against who qualifies, read the program terms and register for a partner link if you have not already. The venture platform overview covers the rest of the portfolio workflow.
Readers weighing SourceX as an investment, rather than as a place to send introductions, can request investor materials through the SourceX investor overview, which is a separate process from the referral program.
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.