Most changes touch fewer rows than they seem to. SourceX's program terms list five dated versions between 12 and 22 October 2026. As the terms' own version notes describe them, none changed which companies fit, and one defined what counts as an existing relationship, which decides whether an introduction can be credited. A register shows that in minutes instead of forcing a full re-map.
Two kinds of change, and where each one shows up
Published program facts. The program terms carry a version number and publication date at the top, and section 11 notes what each version changed. The who-qualifies page sets the screening profile: roughly 50 or more full-time employees at peak and several years in operation, original documentation, rights to license and an authorized sponsor. It also says programs differ in company size, operating history, geography, language and data category, and that some programs set higher thresholds. These are the changes you can see, date and log.
Program demand. Whether a company's records match SourceX's current data needs is checked in review, company by company. There is no public list of what each program wants this month. You learn about demand from the outcome of a review or from what SourceX tells you, which is why the register has a place for communicated changes as well as published ones.
Outside events. Some events may shift what AI developers ask about records without changing any SourceX criterion. The EU's AI Act, for example, requires providers of general-purpose AI models under Article 53(1)(d) to draw up and publish a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training, using a template from the AI Office. A rule like that could make documented provenance matter more. Whether it changes any SourceX program is not something the regulation tells you, so it goes in the register as a watch item, not a change.
Give every row a reason code before anything changes
A map can only be re-run cheaply if each row records why it stands where it does. Each row carries the company, its CEO, the relationship owner, the date it was last screened, its status, the source of each fit fact and one reason code.
| Code | Meaning | Can a criteria change reopen it? |
|---|---|---|
| SIZE | Below 50 full-time employees at peak | Only if the referral threshold changes; the terms set 50 today |
| HIST | Too little documented operating history for the program you were told about | Yes, if a program's history requirement changes, or as years pass |
| REL | Relevance unconfirmed: a record category SourceX has not said it needs | Yes; this is the code demand changes reach |
| GEO | Location or data language outside the published list | Yes, if the published list changes |
| RIGHTS | Records belong to clients or are restricted by contract | No; criteria changes do not cure rights |
| CEO-NO | The CEO declined | No; only the CEO reopens it |
| OWNER-NO | The relationship owner declined to ask | No; only the owner reopens it |
| DUP | The company already has an application, account or correspondence with SourceX | No; the terms decide credit |
Three codes can never be reopened by a criteria change. Rows under RIGHTS, CEO-NO and OWNER-NO are waiting on a person or a contract, not on SourceX, and the register leaves them alone.
The criteria change impact register
Rows 1 to 5 are the actual October 2026 term versions; rows 6 to 8 are Illustrative.
| # | Date and source | What changed | Rows it can touch | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 Oct 2026, terms version notes | The the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout calculation applies to all referrals, including earlier ones | No row by fit; rows where you explained rewards to an owner | Correct what you told owners; no re-screen |
| 2 | 19 Oct 2026, terms version notes | Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement | No row by fit; whoever submits | Confirm the submitter has signed; agreements under the earlier title remain in force |
| 3 | 21 Oct 2026, terms version notes | An existing relationship is any earlier lead, account or email correspondence with SourceX | Any row where the company may have contacted SourceX itself | Ask the owner whether the company applied or corresponded; code DUP where it did |
| 4 | 22 Oct 2026, terms version notes | Payment deadline set at 60 calendar days, counted from completed handoff or the Acquisition Partner's final written acceptance, whichever is later | No row by fit; rows where you discussed timing | Correct any timing you described |
| 5 | 22 Oct 2026, version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04 | Actual Supplier Payout defined in the agreement's own words | No row by fit | Update your reward explanation |
| 6 | Illustrative | SourceX tells partners a program in one record category accepts shorter documented histories | Rows in that category coded HIST | Re-screen with the owner's facts |
| 7 | Illustrative | SourceX tells you a record category you coded REL is now relevant | Rows coded REL in that category | Re-ask the relationship owner; revive only on the owner's yes |
| 8 | Illustrative watch item | An outside rule may change what developers ask about provenance | Rows whose records are poorly documented | Hold; act only if SourceX's criteria change |
The six actions. No change: the row keeps its status. Correct: you fix something you told a relationship owner, and the row stays put. Re-screen: you check the affected fit fact with the owner, from what the owner knows. Re-ask: you ask the relationship owner whether to approach the CEO again. Revive: the owner says yes, and the row re-enters the ranking. Hold: the row waits for a named trigger.
Methods note. Rows 1 to 5 restate the version notes in section 11 of SourceX's program terms, version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04; the reason codes apply the fit profile on the who-qualifies page; both were checked 2026-10-26. The register records only changes that are published or communicated to you. It cannot capture demand shifts you never see, and it does not assess whether any company's records would be licensed. The format borrows from engineering change control, where each change is checked against the parts it affects before release; the live guide to engineering change impact reviews shows that discipline in its original setting.
Three rows after a change (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Generic companies, invented facts, no outcomes implied.
A. The owner-led company, coded HIST. A 140-person regional engineering firm is still run by its founder as CEO, who is also the platform lead's direct contact. The row was coded HIST because its project records only went digital four years ago. When change 6 arrives for its record category, the platform lead re-screens with the founder, who confirms the records and wants the conversation. The row revives. The company never applied before, so whether credit follows depends, as always, on the first valid introduction and a verified application.
B. The network intermediary, coded REL. A portfolio founder owns the relationship with the CEO of a 500-person customer, a field-services company with long dispatch histories. The row was coded REL. Change 7 reaches it, and the platform lead asks the portfolio founder, not the customer's CEO. The founder asks to wait until a contract renewal closes next quarter. The row moves to Hold with that date as its trigger.
C. The counterexample, coded RIGHTS. A 300-person outsourced claims processor holds a decade of files, but they belong to the insurers it serves. No row in the register touches it, and none could: a criteria change does not change who owns records. It stays where it is, with the reason visible to anyone who wonders why a large, well-documented company never moves.
A change can reopen fit, never authorization
A criteria change can make more companies fit. It never makes more relationships authorized. A revived row needs the relationship owner's fresh yes and a CEO who knows about the conversation now; consent given months ago to a different question does not carry over. Location is still one of the fit facts: 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.
Credit has its own rules, and change 3 sharpened them. Companies that already have an application, relationship or earlier valid introduction with SourceX are reviewed as duplicates and are not credited to a later partner, and attribution is decided from dated records. Reviving a row is therefore not the same as making a new introduction. Check for a DUP before the owner spends any goodwill.
Re-rank the touched rows, and leave the rest alone
Only rows the change reached move. Rank them by an authorized path first, then complete fit facts, then a dated event such as a documented system migration or archive deletion, then a finished duplicate check. Untouched rows keep their places, which protects relationship owners from being asked again for no reason.
Leave money out of the ranking. A looser threshold says nothing about what any company would license or be paid, and SourceX has not published conversion rates or typical payouts. For the wider point about why demand changes the value of an opportunity, see the live guide on buyer demand and opportunity value. For how the map itself is built, ring by ring, see the five-ring network map.
Where the register can mislead
- Invisible demand. Most shifts in what programs need are never published. Rows coded REL can be stale for months without any entry telling you.
- Drifting facts. Headcount grows, records are migrated and companies change hands, with no criteria change at all. Re-screen every row at least once a year; the guide on assessing a company that recently changed ownership covers the hardest case.
- Regulation as a false signal. An outside rule may never reach SourceX's criteria. Holding rows on a watch item is cheap; reviving them on one is not.
- CEO fatigue. Going back to a CEO who once declined costs more than a first ask. The answer on an owner changing their mind after an introduction shows how to keep that door open.
- Over-reaction. Four of the five October versions changed reward, payment and agreement terms, not which companies fit. Re-mapping a network after each would waste every owner's time.
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 change revives a row with a confirmed relationship owner and a CEO who wants the conversation, register for a partner link, re-check the row against who qualifies and read the current program terms, version line included. For the platform side of the program, see the overview for venture platform teams.
Evaluating SourceX as a company is a separate decision from maintaining a referral map; readers making that decision can request investor materials at 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.