The worksheet works just as well for companies outside the funded portfolio. A useful venture channel includes LP-owned businesses, portfolio customers and former portfolio companies, and funding status never establishes eligibility.
Why the screen comes before the email
An email from an investor about licensing does three things at once. It carries the fund's implied endorsement, it sets an expectation, and if the sender may be paid it creates a connection the founder would not expect. The FTC's Endorsement Guides treat the possibility of being paid as a material connection to disclose clearly and conspicuously in that situation. If the company then fails a published test, the fund has spent credibility and created an awkward disclosure for nothing.
SourceX describes its criteria as screening guidance, not a guarantee of eligibility, and says an introduction the decision maker has not been told about is usually not a fit. Screening first lets the email be specific, honest and addressed to the right person. The portfolio company screening workbook lists the baseline criteria as columns; this worksheet adds the two lines it does not cover, the operating entity and its controller, and says what to do with every answer before an email exists.
Identify the operating entity and who controls it today
Start with the company of record, not the brand. The operating entity is the legal entity that employs the people and holds the records. In a holding structure a management company may employ everyone while subsidiaries hold the records, and a company that rebranded or reincorporated may carry a registry date much younger than its history. SourceX looks at the one company that holds the records, owns the rights and can sign, which is why the worksheet names it first; whether sister companies can combine headcount walks through common structures. For the reward, a parent company and its subsidiaries count as one company: the USD 50,000 floor applies once across the group, on its first qualifying transaction, and further qualifying transactions within the Repeat Window pay 15%.
Then name who controls that entity now. A recapitalization, a sale or a new majority owner can move the CEO seat and the right to decide, and a sale in progress raises its own questions, covered in licensing during a business sale. Public registers help unevenly. In the UK, Companies House guidance defines a person with significant control as anyone holding more than one quarter of the shares or voting rights, the right to appoint or remove a majority of directors, or significant influence or control. In the EU, the Court of Justice ruled on 22 November 2022 that the anti-money-laundering provision opening beneficial ownership registers to any member of the public was invalid, so an outsider may not find owners there. In practice the controller line is filled from the cap table the fund already holds and from the founder.
The pre-email eligibility worksheet
Fill one row per company. Send only when every line is in the "send when" column; any "do not send" stops the row.
| Line | Question | Acceptable evidence | Send when | Otherwise |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operating entity | Which legal entity holds the records and employs the staff? | Founder's statement; registry for name and formation date | One entity is named | Hold until it is |
| 2. Current controller | Who controls that entity today, and is a sale or recapitalization under way? | Cap table the fund holds; the founder; the PSC register for a UK company | Control and the CEO seat are stable | Route through whoever now controls it |
| 3. Size at peak | Did that entity reach 50+ full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded? | The founder, or payroll history | Yes | Below 50: do not send |
| 4. Operating history | Does it keep years of its own records in systems it administers? | System names and earliest year | Yes, systems named | Unknown: ask one metadata question first |
| 5. Geography and language | Is it in an eligible location, with at least 70% English data where that applies? | Headquarters and the working language of the records | Eligible and clear | Outside the list: do not send; borderline language: ask SourceX |
| 6. Own records | Did the company create the records, rather than its clients or consumers? | Founder's description of who created them | Yes | Only client-owned or consumer data: do not send |
| 7. Addressee | Is the email going to the CEO, or with the CEO's knowledge? | Current roles | Yes | Founder no longer CEO: rewrite it to the CEO |
| 8. New to SourceX | Has the company never applied to, been a lead of or corresponded with SourceX? | Ask the founder | Yes | Already known: no introduction; the company may proceed on its own |
Line 3 counts peak, not current, headcount, so a company that peaked at 70 and now employs 40 passes. For a staffing firm, only its own full-time employees count, not placed workers on assignment at clients; record both numbers and keep the row if its records are strong. Line 8 matters because the program terms treat any earlier application, lead, account or email correspondence with SourceX as an existing relationship, reviewed as a duplicate and not credited, and SourceX checks its own records before inviting an introduced company.
Method note. The eight lines are derived from SourceX's program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04) and screening page, with the controller line informed by UK and EU ownership rules, all checked 2026-10-26. The worksheet tests published fit facts and the path to the CEO. It does not test whether a company's records match current demand, whether its customer contracts allow licensing or what a license would be worth; those are settled only in SourceX's review.
Mandate, language and history questions that trip a screen
Mandate. Passing the published facts is not the same as matching current demand. SourceX's screening page says requirements differ by program in size, operating history, geography, language and data category, and that missing one program's requirements does not rule a company out of another program later. The email therefore says "may be a fit", never "qualifies".
Language. 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. The 90% applies to the data, not the company's working language, so a company in one of those countries with mixed-language records is a question for SourceX rather than a guess. EU companies raise their own screening points, covered in EU portfolio data referral eligibility.
History. A registry's formation date measures the current entity, not the business. Reincorporations, rebrands and acquisitions all reset it, so line 4 asks about systems and earliest record years instead.
Three rows through the worksheet: sent, held and rejected (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Each row uses a generic company and invented facts, and none implies an outcome.
A. Sent: an inspection firm. A 210-person U.S. field-inspection company, majority-owned and run by its founder as CEO, keeps 15 years of inspection reports and QA records in a system it administers and has never contacted SourceX. All eight lines pass. The email goes to the founder-CEO, built on the portfolio operations review introduction email and disclosing the referral relationship.
B. Held: a firm just acquired. A 140-person software services firm in Ireland was sold to a UK group four months ago. The founder now leads integration, the group's CEO decides, and records are moving between the Irish entity and group systems. Lines 1 and 8 are unknown; lines 2 and 7 fail because control and the CEO seat have moved. Sizes, history, location and record ownership pass. The row is held while whoever knows the group asks its CEO; no email goes to the founder.
C. Rejected: a Brazil software company. A 95-person logistics software company in Brazil keeps most of its records in Portuguese, and its support histories sit in customers' own systems. Lines 5 and 6 fail; every other line passes. The row is closed with both reasons recorded and no email sent, because nothing about the company would change the language or ownership of those records soon.
What the fund says to a founder for each worksheet outcome
What the fund says next depends on where the row ended.
| Situation | Say | Never say |
|---|---|---|
| All eight lines pass | Your company may be a fit for a data licensing conversation; SourceX decides after its own review | "You qualify" or "SourceX will want this" |
| One line unknown | The single metadata question, such as since what year the help desk holds tickets | Anything about licensing before the answer |
| Borderline mandate or language | A question to SourceX describing the company at metadata level, without its name unless the CEO agreed | A submission presented as an introduction |
| Excluded | Nothing to the founder about licensing; record the reason and the trigger that would change it | "You were rejected" |
| The founder asks whether you would be paid | Yes, if a license completes: SourceX pays the reward separately and never deducts it from the company's payout | Anything that hides or minimizes it |
For the disclosure wording itself, see whether you have to disclose a referral fee. Partners never ask for files, samples or logins at any stage; everything in the worksheet is descriptive.
Limits of a pre-email screen
- Registers are thin. The UK's PSC regime is one country's rule, and EU registers may no longer be open to the general public after the 2022 ruling. The controller line depends on what the fund and the founder know.
- Memory is partial. Founders misremember peak headcount and the year a system started. Line 3 and line 4 answers should be dated and attributed.
- Passing is not acceptance. SourceX's review and current needs decide fit, and under the terms a lead, meeting or signature alone earns nothing.
- Rights hide in contracts. Line 6 catches obvious client-owned records; customer contract terms are read by counsel and in SourceX's rights review.
- Nobody has measured how well such screens predict review outcomes. SourceX has not published that figure. Record each row's screen result and, later, the review result, so your own calibration exists. The live portfolio operations review screen covers the earlier step of spotting candidates.
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 row passes all eight lines, register for a partner link, recheck it against who qualifies and read the program terms before the founder email goes out; the sender must first sign the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement. Related portfolio methods sit in the guides library.
Evaluating SourceX as an investment is a different decision from screening a portfolio company for referral, and investor materials can be requested through 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.