This page is for fractional CFOs, controllers and accounting practice leaders who help clients decide what to keep, where and at what cost. It gives no legal, tax or professional-conduct advice. The rule check itself has its own page, the accountant's service-and-jurisdiction review; this one covers the moment inside the archive review when licensing comes up.
What an archive review is for, and what an introduction adds for the client
An archive review usually starts for reasons that have nothing to do with AI: a retention schedule falls due, storage bills rise, an old system is being switched off, the office moves, or a sale or wind-down is coming. Your part is the finance side of that work: which records the books and returns still depend on, what keeping them costs and what a system retirement means for the close. The decisions about keeping or destroying records belong to the company, with its counsel and its tax adviser.
What an introduction adds is one option the CEO may weigh. SourceX licenses business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and the company decides whether to apply at all. Nothing about your advisory work changes, and section 4 of the program terms says the referral reward "is paid separately by SourceX and is never deducted from the supplier's agreed compensation." The company is paid the same amount whether or not you are involved.
Keep the two jobs apart. A possible introduction must not shape your retention advice or your view of storage spending. If the CEO asks whether to keep records longer because a license might follow, that question goes to the company's counsel and tax adviser, and SourceX publishes no promise that any record will be licensed.
The archive discussion referral trigger list
Eleven things an advisor commonly hears or sees during an archive review, sorted by where each one came from. Only the client's own words or decisions lead anywhere, and even those lead to one answer or one question, never to a file.
| # | What happens in the review | Where it came from | What you do | Who handles the rest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The CEO asks whether old records could be worth anything outside the company | The decider's own words | Answer in two sentences: what SourceX does, and whether you could be paid; then stop | The CEO; SourceX only once the CEO applies or agrees to an introduction |
| 2 | The CFO or controller asks the same thing | A client's words, not the decider's | Say the CEO decides, and offer to give the CEO the same two sentences | The CFO or controller, who takes it to the CEO |
| 3 | An old system is being switched off and its history archived | A client decision | Finish the retirement work first; afterwards, one question to the CEO if the history is the company's own work | The CEO; the system's owner for the retirement |
| 4 | Records are scheduled for destruction under the retention policy | A client decision | Leave licensing out of it; never use your role to slow or stop a deletion | Counsel and the records owner |
| 5 | Records are under a legal hold or tied to a dispute | The client tells you | No licensing question while the hold stands | Counsel |
| 6 | Most of the archive is the company's clients' files | The client's description | No question: SourceX's screening page lists client-owned material as usually not a fit | Nobody; note it |
| 7 | The client says the records were licensed to an AI developer before | The client's words | Note that data already licensed for AI training is not eligible; leave the rest to SourceX if the CEO applies | The CEO, then SourceX |
| 8 | Storage cost is the reason for the review | A client decision | Not a reason to mention SourceX; never offer licensing as a way to pay for storage | Nobody |
| 9 | You notice, while working, that the company kept many years of its own records | Your own observation | At most one open question to the CEO later, without describing what you saw; nothing goes to SourceX | The CEO |
| 10 | The review is part of a sale or a wind-down | The client tells you | Find out who decides: the company's CEO until closing, the acquirer's CEO after; in a formal process the CEO alone may not be enough | The CEO or the estate's controller, with counsel |
| 11 | Your firm performs audit, review or other attest work for the client | Your own engagement records | Clear independence and pay with your firm's ethics partner or board before any mention | Ethics partner, board or counsel |
Rows 1 to 3 are openings the client creates. Row 9 is the hardest, because the advisor knows something the CEO may not have thought about; the answer is a question that carries none of the advisor's knowledge, such as "Have you ever considered whether the company's own operating records could be licensed?" asked once, at a normal check-in.
Three openings that look natural and stay closed
The storage bill. Licensing is not a storage budget. SourceX's process runs through a Master agreement, a Dataset Deal Confirmation, delivery, acceptance and Closing before the company even invoices, so a cost that needs cutting this quarter should be cut on its own merits.
The deletion date. When a client is about to destroy records under its policy, raising licensing turns a compliance decision into a sales conversation. If records may need to be kept for legal reasons, that is a question for counsel first, which the guide on preserving records before a licensing conversation walks through from the company's side.
What the files showed you. The AICPA's Code of Professional Conduct has a Confidential Client Information Rule and treats information obtained from a client that is not available to the public as confidential client information (our paraphrase of the Code). Whether that rule binds you is for your society, board or counsel. SourceX's agreement points the same way: section 4.2 says "This Agreement gives Partner no authority to share a supplier's inventory, records, raw data or personal information, or to access extraction systems." Finding an archive and licensing it are different jobs, as the discovery-versus-licensing map shows.
Participation, independence and pay before the first sentence
Settle this before the archive review begins, because a CEO's question deserves an immediate, honest answer about whether you could be paid.
Role-specific restrictions change with the client: the services you or your firm perform for it, whether others rely on a report you issue, whether you are its employee or an outside adviser, and what your engagement letter says about outside pay.
Jurisdiction-specific restrictions change with you: which boards license you, which bodies you belong to and where you serve the client. When people other than accountants could be paid, the cross-profession issue register keeps each person's questions on their own row.
SourceX's terms do not decide any of this for you. Section 5 adds that "payment must also be lawful," and the terms say nothing about a partner declining a reward. This page does not say what any rule requires; it only places the check before the conversation.
Two client-approved routes out of the same review
Paid. A dated written answer from your board, professional body, firm or counsel permits it; you give whatever disclosure that answer requires before mentioning SourceX as a possible payer; the CEO wants the introduction. You register, sign the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement and submit, and SourceX decides fit and credit. What a reviewed disclosure should say is set out in the client disclosure a finance advisor should review.
Unpaid. The answer rules out pay, or you would rather take nothing. Tell the CEO that SourceX exists and how to apply, and do not register or submit for this company. If you are already registered and want no reward for one client, SourceX decides how that is handled, so ask it in writing before anything is submitted.
On both routes the company is paid the same and the CEO controls every step. Nothing from the archive review travels with either route.
Three archive reviews, three endings (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Invented advisers and companies; no outcome is implied.
A. The CEO asks. A fractional CFO is helping a 170-person engineering firm switch off a project database it has run since 2011. At the planning meeting, the CEO asks whether fourteen years of project history could be worth anything to anyone. The CFO already holds a dated written answer from her counsel that permits a reward with written disclosure. She gives the disclosure, explains in two sentences what SourceX does, and the CEO asks for the introduction a week later, after the retirement plan is signed off. The company applies itself.
B. The advisor noticed. A CPA building a retention schedule for a 230-person distributor sees, in the course of the work, two decades of the company's own returns and claims records. He says nothing during the review, asks the CEO the open question from row 9 at the next quarterly check-in, hears not now, and records the date without raising it again.
C. The archive belongs to others. A 90-person consultancy wants to cut storage for fifteen years of deliverables, nearly all of them its clients' property. Rows 6 and 8 both apply. No question is asked, and the review stays a storage review.
What only SourceX's review can settle
An advisor can confirm a few facts from conversation with the CEO, never from files: whether the company's full-time headcount reached 50 or more at its peak, contractors excluded; roughly how many years its own records span; and whether the CEO wants the conversation. Location matters too. 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.
Everything else waits for SourceX: whether the company holds the rights to license its records without breaching client confidentiality, employee privacy or third-party contracts; whether the data has been licensed for AI training before; and whether it matches a current program. The company lists its systems, years of history and what can be exported, and SourceX completes the inventory with the company and runs the rights check. The advisor is not part of that work.
Where an archive trigger list can mislead
- Words are ambiguous. "Is any of this worth keeping?" is usually a retention question, not an invitation. When unsure, answer the retention question and wait.
- You may not know about a hold. A dispute or investigation can be confidential even from the finance team; row 5 only works if the client tells you.
- Demand moves. Whether a company's records fit a current program is decided only in SourceX's review, and a strong archive can still be declined.
Method note. The trigger list was assembled on 2026-10-27 from SourceX's terms (version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), screening page, how-it-works page and partner agreement sample, and the AICPA Code's definition of confidential client information. It sorts situations by where the trigger came from and interprets no rule; no figures exist on how often archive reviews lead to introductions.
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 client's CEO has asked the question and your own pay rules are settled, register as a partner, compare the company's own description with who qualifies and read the program terms before you submit; the stages after that are on how it works, and related guides sit in the guides hub.