That answer also keeps your firm inside its own agreement, which says a partner may not commit SourceX to payouts or other obligations.
Exceptions exist only on signed paper
The program does allow terms to differ from the website, but only through documents both sides sign. The published terms say the reward rate and calculation base in a signed Schedule A prevail over the website terms, that an expressly agreed signed addendum may override the relevant provisions, and that rates and exceptions in signed agreements are preserved when the terms change. The agreement adds two conditions: a signed addendum overrides a provision only if it expressly identifies the change, and a website update, dashboard edit, unanswered message or one-time exception does not amend the agreement.
| What someone calls an exception | What it actually is | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| "Can you waive the 90 days for us?" | A request to change a term | Only a writing signed by both parties |
| "The other partner's date is wrong" | A disputed fact | SourceX, in duplicate or dispute review |
| "They only applied late because of the holidays" | A request to excuse the rule | The published term, which has no such allowance |
| "Our Schedule A sets a different rate" | A signed term that already exists | The signed document, which prevails |
| "Count this partial delivery on its own" | A change to how payment is triggered | Express written agreement, per the terms |
Keep the second row apart: disputing a fact is not asking for a favor, and the terms invite it. Everything else is either in a signed document already or would need one.
Lay out the company's record, oldest entry first
Before anyone answers an introducer, list every dated event for the company. Most "exception" requests dissolve here.
| Event | Where its record lives | What it can establish |
|---|---|---|
| A spoken mention to the CEO | Nowhere, until someone writes it down | Nothing yet; the agreement protects an oral introduction only once it is confirmed in writing |
| The written introduction to the CEO | The introducer's sent mail | The date and the person introduced |
| The portal submission | The partner dashboard | The company, domain, partner, method and timestamp the agreement asks every record to carry |
| A visit through the partner link | SourceX's link records | That a page was opened; a click alone does not decide credit |
| The verified application | SourceX's records | The event that earns credit, and the date the 90 days are measured to |
| Any earlier contact between the company and SourceX | SourceX's records, which partners cannot see | Whether the company is a duplicate under section 3 of the terms |
| Another partner's introduction | That partner's records, never shared with you | Whether yours was first; SourceX compares them |
Count the days from the recorded introduction to the application. The two rows you cannot fill, SourceX's history with the company and other partners' records, are why some answers must be "SourceX decides".
The exception-request language guide
Nine requests a partner operations manager hears most often, the term that governs each, and the sentence to use. The "never say" column is the promise your team must not make, however sympathetic the case.
| What you hear | Governing term | Say | Never say | Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "I mentioned SourceX to the CEO months ago" | Schedule A, paragraph 2; agreement section 1.2 | "Credit is decided from dated written records. Send a written introduction now, and the record will show where it stands." | "Your conversation counts; I've noted it." | The term |
| "They applied four days after the window" | Terms section 2; Schedule A, paragraph 2 | "The window runs 90 days from the recorded introduction, and nothing in the terms extends it for delays." | "A few days won't matter." | The term |
| "My link was clicked before their email" | Terms section 2 | "A click alone does not decide credit. SourceX weighs both dated records in duplicate review." | "First click wins." | Review |
| "SourceX already knew them, but I revived the deal" | Terms section 3 | "Any earlier lead, account or email between SourceX and the company makes it a duplicate. Send evidence only if you think it was a different company." | "Ask for a goodwill payment for the effort." | The term; review only on identity |
| "Their sister company came through another partner" | Not addressed in the terms for credit | "The terms do not say how related companies affect credit, so SourceX decides it in duplicate review. Send the group structure with the introduction." | "A different legal entity means you are clear." | Review |
| "Can my colleague and I share the credit?" | Terms section 2: one partner per company | "SourceX credits one partner per company, so agree who submits before anyone writes to the CEO." | "We'll ask SourceX to split it." | The term |
| "The CEO was on leave; can the clock pause?" | Agreement sections 3.2 and 7.7 | "Reviews, holds and deadlines do not extend attribution, and only a writing signed by both parties changes a term." | "I'll get them to pause it." | Signed writing only |
| "The dashboard said Eligible, so it's locked" | Schedule A, paragraph 9; agreement section 7.7 | "Statuses report progress; a dashboard edit does not change the agreement. You can ask SourceX to explain your own reward." | "Eligible means it's yours." | Explanation request |
| "They signed, so I'm paid" | Terms section 5; agreement section 4.6 | "A signature does not make a reward payable. Acceptance, cleared payment, the supplier's payment and finance approval come first." | "Signed means paid." | The term |
Method note. Each row cites the program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04) or the unsigned Channel Partner Agreement sample (version 2026-10-19), read on 2026-10-26; a signed agreement governs where it differs. The requests come from the questions the terms address, not from a case log, and SourceX has not published how often each arises or how reviews end. The sister-company row states no rule on purpose: the program has no cap and the USD 50,000 floor applies once per referred company, but whether a sister company's earlier introduction or contact affects credit is decided by SourceX in duplicate review.
Most replies hinge on three words, "the record shows", which move the conversation from what someone deserves to what the documents say.
Three requests your team will hear, on three dated timelines (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Generic companies, invented dates, no outcomes implied.
A. Four days late. An introducer at a 30-person consulting firm emails the CEO of a 180-person insurance claims administrator on 2 June 2026 and submits the introduction in the portal the same day. The CEO applies on 4 September, day 94; day 90 was 31 August. The introducer wants an exception. Paragraph 2 of Schedule A governs, and the reply is the guide's second row; a dispute makes sense only if a recorded date is wrong.
B. Said first, written second. An introducer mentions SourceX to the CEO of a 260-person freight forwarder at an industry dinner on 14 May. Another partner emails that CEO a written introduction on 19 June and submits it that day. Your introducer writes on 30 June, and the company applies on 8 July. Credit is determined from dated introduction records, and the agreement protects an oral introduction only once it is confirmed in writing. The earliest written record is the other partner's; SourceX decides in duplicate review, and your reply promises nothing.
C. The sister company. On 10 March another partner introduces a 70-person freight brokerage owned by a holding company, and it applies on 24 March. On 4 August your introducer writes to the CEO of the same holding company's 400-person warehousing operator, which applies on 19 August. The introducer wants a promise. The terms do not address it, so the reply is the fifth row: SourceX decides in duplicate review; there is no cap, and the USD 50,000 floor applies once per referred company.
Reply templates for the three routes
Short enough to paste into a message to an introducer.
- When the term decides. "Thanks for the detail. Under section 2 of the program terms, credit goes to the first valid introduction within 90 days of the recorded introduction, and the record here shows [date] to [date]. Neither of us can change that term; only a writing signed by SourceX and the partner can."
- When review decides. "This is SourceX's call in duplicate review, not ours. I'm sending the company's legal name and domain, your written introduction and the portal date to hello@sourcex.si. I can't predict the outcome, and I won't tell the CEO anything about credit."
- When someone offers a change. "If SourceX agrees a different term, it needs to be a signed addendum that names the provision it changes. Until that exists, the published terms and our signed agreement apply."
The four items a review needs from you
When a request is really a disputed fact, send hello@sourcex.si the referral details and four items, as section 7 of the terms describes:
- The company's legal name, its domain and, for a group, the parent and the entity you introduced.
- The written introduction, unedited, with its date, recipients and text.
- The date of the portal submission.
- One sentence naming the fact you dispute and the term you think applies.
Leave out client records, the company's internal emails and any other partner's material, and never edit the original evidence. What comes back is an explanation of your own referral, with reference codes, status information and redacted calculations.
Where this phrasing runs out
- Signed agreements vary. The guide follows the published terms and the unsigned sample; a partner's signed Schedule A or addendum may differ, and it governs.
- Unsettled questions stay unsettled. Related companies and earlier contact by a parent or sister company are decided case by case in duplicate review; the guide does not predict those outcomes.
- Nobody publishes review statistics. How long reviews take and how often a disputed date changes a decision are not published.
- Employer changes need their own analysis. When an introducer moves firms, start from the signed agreement, as covered in who owns an active referral after a partner changes employers.
For the clocks themselves, the attribution window explainer and attribution versus contact protection draw each one. Two partners claiming one company are compared in seven evidence checks, and earlier SourceX contact is tested in whether an existing relationship affects credit. When a link and an email disagree, the written introduction vs link evidence timeline shows how the records read.
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.
Give your team this guide before the next introduction goes out, so that every introducer sends a dated written introduction to a CEO who wants the conversation, having first taken a partner link from the registration page, tested the company on who qualifies and read sections 2, 3 and 7 of the program terms. More attribution cases sit in the guides library.