The published rule, word for word: 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.
Read it closely. The company's location picks which half of that sentence applies. The 90% in the second half is a property of the data, and no address can supply it.
What an address can and cannot tell you
A portfolio operations analyst filling in a referral summary is tempted to write "Language: English" because the company is in Singapore, Dubai or Bengaluru and does business in English. That line reads as a fact and rests on nothing.
- Official languages are plural. Singapore's Constitution names four official languages: Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English. A Singapore address does not say which of them a given team typed its notes in.
- Regions are not languages. "Latin America" in the rule is a region of many countries, not a language. The standard language tags even give Spanish as used across Latin America and the Caribbean its own region code, es-419.
- No share is not no language. For a company in the U.S., Canada or the EU, the published rule sets no English share. SourceX's who-qualifies page still says its current data needs differ in language, so a Montreal company's French service notes or a Munich company's German engineering reports are worth stating plainly.
- Head office and records can sit apart. A company headquartered in one country may create its records in another. Write both countries and let SourceX decide in review; the published rule does not say how such a group is treated, and sorting entities is covered in checking language coverage before suggesting global fit.
Context to gather before any language line
Five facts per record stream, collected through whoever holds the CEO relationship, in the company's words: the system and record type; the entity and country that created it; the years it covers; which fields are free text and which are codes, numbers or dates; and the administrator who knows it. Add the CEO as the sponsor and whether the CEO wants a conversation.
The free-text question is the one most summaries skip. Language lives in narrative fields, documents and audio. A ledger of amounts, dates and product codes carries very little of it, while exception notes, email threads and call recordings carry nearly all of it. A language line that does not say which fields it describes cannot be checked.
The language evidence note template
One note per record stream. The company fills it in; the analyst checks that every field has an answer, including "unknown".
| Field | What to write | The weak version to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Stream | System and record type, with years: "exception notes in the transport management system, 2016-2026" | "Our data" |
| 2. Made by | The entity and country whose people created it | The head office city |
| 3. Content type | Free text, structured codes, documents or audio, and the mix | Nothing, as if all fields were alike |
| 4. Languages, tagged | Standard tags, such as en-IN, ar-AE or es-419 | "Mostly English" |
| 5. Share | A range per language for this stream | One overall figure for the whole company |
| 6. Basis | The evidence rung the share rests on (see the ladder below) | Blank |
| 7. Mixed or translated | Templates in one language with notes in another; anything translated, when and how | Silence |
| 8. Supplied by | Role, date, and whether the CEO approved the wording | "The company says" |
| 9. Status | Reported, estimated or unknown | A confident number with no status |
The tags in field 4 come from the IETF's BCP 47, published as RFC 5646. It describes region subtags as marking variations associated with a specific country, territory or region, which is exactly the distinction a summary needs: en-IN says English as used in India, de-AT German as used in Austria. Writing the tag forces the question "which language, as used where?" and does not claim anything the company did not say.
The evidence ladder for field 6. Each rung supports a different kind of statement.
| Rung | Basis | What it can support in the note |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Headquarters address | Nothing about language; write "unknown" |
| 1 | Website and marketing material | Which audience the company writes for; "unknown, likely English" at most |
| 2 | Where staff and customers are | A hypothesis to put to the company |
| 3 | Interface language settings of the system | What the screens display, not what people typed into them |
| 4 | The company's own count on a sample spread across years and teams | A reported share, labeled as the company's estimate |
| 5 | SourceX's measurement of the dataset actually offered | The share that counts |
Only rungs 4 and 5 put a number in field 5. Rungs 0 to 3 justify a question, never a share.
Method note. The template and ladder were built for this page from the published geography sentence and the language variation noted on SourceX's who-qualifies page, with tag notation from RFC 5646, all checked 2026-10-27. The note records what a company reports and how it knows it. It does not measure record quality, demand for the records or rights to license them, and it does not replace SourceX's own measurement.
One freight forwarder, two notes (Illustrative)
Illustrative. A generic company with invented figures; no outcome is implied.
A 240-person freight forwarder headquartered in Dubai, with its own full-time employees at peak counted by its finance lead, sits in the second half of the rule. The first draft of its summary said: "Language: English. Basis: headquartered in Dubai; business is conducted in English." That is rung 0 dressed as rung 4.
The note its operations lead completed, and its CEO approved, read differently:
| Stream | Content type | Languages | Share | Basis | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shipment milestones, 2016-2026 | Structured codes and short status text | en | Little free text to measure | Rung 3, plus the administrator's description | Reported |
| Exception notes, 2016-2026 | Free text | en, ar | en 85-90%, ar 10-15% | Rung 4: 300 notes drawn across all ten years by the operations lead | Estimated by the company |
| Customer email archive | Free text and attachments | en, ar | Not counted | Rung 2 | Unknown |
| Driver voice notes | Audio | ar, hi, ur | Not counted | None | Out of scope: the company would not offer them |
The richest stream, the exception notes, sits at or below the 90% line on the company's own count. The summary does not round that up, and it does not conclude the company fails either. It states the range with its basis and leaves the measurement to SourceX. The email archive stays "unknown", with the operations lead named as the person who could count it if the company proceeds.
Labels for estimates, constraints and the unknown
- Estimates carry three things. The range, the basis (a rung) and the person who produced it. "en 85-90%, operations lead's count of 300 notes, 2026-10-20."
- Translation is flagged, not absorbed. If a stream was translated, by people or software, write when and how. How translated text is treated is SourceX's decision on the dataset offered.
- Constraints go in, briefly. Email and call archives carry personal details and may sit under customer contracts; name the constraint and leave the analysis to SourceX's rights review.
- Unknowns have owners. "Customer email share: unknown; operations lead could count; not yet asked."
Sending the notes and planning the first call
The CEO approves the notes, the relationship owner sends the summary, and the company applies itself through the partner's link. Whoever submits must have signed the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement first. The credit is settled when the company submits a verified application, and it goes to whichever valid introduction came first in the 90-day attribution window.
A useful first call between the company and SourceX:
- The company walks through its streams, content types and the languages in each.
- It explains how any share was counted: sample size, years covered, counting unit.
- It says which streams it would actually consider offering.
- SourceX explains what it would measure on that scope.
- Unknowns are assigned, with dates, and the company decides on a next step.
For the arithmetic of an English-share inventory across systems, see the English-language eligibility guide; for companies whose records are mostly in another language, whether non-English documentation can be considered.
Where a language note can mislead
- Self-counts drift upward. A sample from one recent year, or from the team that writes in English, flatters the share. Field 6 and the sample description expose it; they do not cure it.
- The rule names a share, not a unit. "At least 90% of the data" can be counted in records, words or minutes of audio, and each can give a different answer for the same archive. The note says which unit was used.
- Code-switching defeats simple counts. A single message can move between two languages; whether it counts as one or the other is a judgment the note should disclose.
- Programs move. Language preferences differ by program, and a company that does not fit one may fit another later.
- Tags look precise. A tag records what someone reported. It is not a measurement, and a summary should never imply that it is.
Platform teams setting up the referral side across a portfolio can start from the overview for venture platform teams.
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 every stream in the summary has a language note with a basis the company can stand behind, register for a partner link, compare it with who qualifies and read the program terms before the CEO sees the summary.
Analysts who are looking at SourceX itself as a possible investment should treat that as its own decision, separate from any introduction; the SourceX investor overview handles requests for investor materials.
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.