Duplicate applications are ordinary. The COO fills in the form after your call, and the CEO, who never heard about it, applies again a month later. A company that stalled in the spring comes back in the autumn through someone else's link. A subsidiary applies, then its parent applies for the whole group. None of these needs an argument about fairness. Each needs one timeline for the company and a check against two short sections of the terms.
Five ways one company ends up with two applications
| Pattern | What usually happened | Where it usually lands |
|---|---|---|
| Two people, one company | A manager applied after the introduction, and the CEO applied again without knowing | The second form is a duplicate of the first, and the first one's credit stands if it was valid |
| The company was there first | It applied to or corresponded with SourceX on its own, then a partner introduced it | Not a new company, so no partner is credited |
| Parent and subsidiary | One entity in a group applied, then another | One company for the once-per-company floor; attribution across the group goes to review |
| Acquired in between | The company applied, was bought, and the acquirer applied for the group | The earlier record stays on the timeline; send an entity map |
| New name | It applied under a trading name after applying under its legal name | Match on an identifier that did not change |
The rebrand case has its own forms in rebrand attribution evidence. The other four are worked through below.
One timeline per company, whatever the forms say
Start by proving the two forms describe one legal entity. Names alone mislead. The SBA explains that a DBA lets a business operate under a name other than its formal entity name, and most states require one to be registered, so a brand on one form and a legal name on the other can be the same company. Two entities in one group, by contrast, have different registration numbers even when they share a logo.
| Identity field | Where you get it | What it settles | Watch for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal name | The registry entry or the company's own invoices | Which entity applied | A holding company and an operating company with near-identical names |
| Registration number | The state or national company registry | Whether two forms are one entity; it survives a brand change | Different numbers mean different entities, even inside one group |
| Trading names | DBA filings and the company's website | That a brand belongs to an entity | One entity can trade under several names |
| Legal Entity Identifier, if it has one | GLEIF's public lookup | Uniqueness, plus recorded parent links | Only entities that applied for one have it |
| Main web domain | Public | Day-to-day identity | Group companies sometimes share one |
| CEO | The company | Who authorized each application | Often changes after an acquisition |
GLEIF describes the LEI as a 20-character code, based on the ISO 17442 standard, that connects to reference data making each legal entity uniquely identifiable, including who owns whom. When a company has one, it is the cleanest match there is.
Then put every dated record on one line, earliest first: any contact the company had with SourceX before you (the company knows this; you do not), your written introduction, any link visit your dashboard shows, and each application's submission date as the company reports it. You will not see the other application, because partners never receive access to other partners' records or applicant documents. Ask the company for its own dates.
The duplicate application review workflow
Five steps, each with the evidence it needs and the text that governs it. Stop at the first step that settles the case.
| Step | Question | Evidence | Governing text | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Match | Do both forms belong to one legal entity? | Registration number, legal name, trading names | Terms, section 3 | Same number: go on. Different numbers in one group: go to step 4. Unrelated: not a duplicate |
| 2. Order | What is the earliest dated record for this company, from anyone? | The company's account of prior contact, your introduction, application dates | Terms, sections 2 and 3 | A dated list, earliest first |
| 3. Known first | Did SourceX hold an application, relationship or email correspondence before any partner's introduction? | The company's statement; SourceX checks its own records | Terms, section 3 | Yes: no partner is credited. No: go on |
| 4. Group | Is the second form from another entity in the same group? | A map of the group's entities | Program rule: one company for the once-per-company floor | Send it for review with the map; assume nothing either way |
| 5. Window | Did the first valid introduction lead to a verified application within 90 days? | Introduction date, first application's date and status | Terms, section 2 | Yes: credit stays with that introduction. Unclear: send it for review |
Every result above is your reading, not SourceX's decision. The point of the workflow is that what you send is a dated chronology rather than an argument. The subsidiary reward floor guide shows how to draw the entity map step 4 asks for.
Four dated cases (Illustrative)
Illustrative: invented companies and dates, showing how the rules read rather than real outcomes.
Case A, two applicants through one link. A 180-person freight brokerage. On 4 August 2026 you send a written introduction to the CEO, with your link. On 19 August the COO applies through the link. On 30 September the CEO, unaware, applies directly. Both forms carry the same registration number (1187 in the graphic), so the second is a duplicate of the first. SourceX's home page says attribution locks when the application is submitted, which makes the 19 August application the one that counts, provided it is verified. Settled at steps 1 and 5.
Case B, the company was there first. A 300-person medical billing company. On 10 March 2026 its CFO starts an application on SourceX's site and stops. On 15 September you introduce the CEO, and on 29 September the company applies again. The March application means the company was not new when you introduced it, and the terms do not credit a later partner. Nobody is credited, including you. Settled at step 3.
Case C, parent and subsidiary. On 1 July 2026 you introduce the CEO of a 120-person subsidiary, which applies on 20 July. On 5 October its 900-person parent applies for the whole group through another partner's link. For the once-per-company floor the group is one company. If the subsidiary's licensing produced an Actual Supplier Payout of $250,000 and the parent's $250,000 was first agreed within 12 months of that first Closing, the first transaction pays $62,500 (USD 50,000 plus 5%) and the second 15%, $37,500: USD 100,000 on the $500,000 total, not two first-transaction rewards of $62,500 each. Who is credited for the group as a whole is not spelled out in the published terms. Sent to review at step 4, with an entity map.
Case D, a stalled first form and a late second one. A 95-person engineering firm. On 2 May 2026 its CEO opens partner A's link, and on 20 May someone at the firm starts an application and never finishes it. On 14 October partner B introduces the CEO, and on 28 October the firm completes a new application. The May form is an existing application, so the firm was arguably not new when partner B arrived, and partner A's introduction did not lead to a verified application within 90 days. On a plain reading, neither partner may be credited, and whether an unfinished form counts as an application is for SourceX to decide. Sent to review at steps 3 and 5.
What a second application cannot change
- The window. A new form does not restart the 90-day window, and the terms add that the window does not extend because contact protection under the agreement continues.
- Who is credited. A later, fuller or better-presented form does not move credit to whoever prompted it.
- The floor. The reward is the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap. The USD 50,000 floor applies once per referred company, to its first qualifying transaction, and not again on a repeat, renewal or amendment; a parent and its subsidiaries share that one floor.
- What you can see. Partners never receive the other application or another partner's records.
The attribution window explainer covers the clock itself.
What to send SourceX when two forms collide
SourceX's dispute section asks for the referral details and supporting evidence, after which it reviews the case and communicates its decision. One page is enough:
- The legal entity: name, registration number and any trading names used on either form.
- Your written introduction: its date, the recipient's role and the link you shared.
- The link visit date, if your dashboard shows one.
- The company's own account of any earlier contact with SourceX, in its words.
- For a group, an entity map naming the parent and subsidiaries and which one applied when.
Do not send exports, screenshots of the company's systems or anything about another partner.
Stop the second form before it exists
Most duplicates start with a company that did not know who was applying. Before you introduce, ask the CEO two questions: has anyone at the company already contacted or applied to SourceX, and who will submit the single application, under which legal name? Put the legal name and any trading names in your introduction. If the answer to the first question is yes, the company is not new, and the honest move is to say so and step back. When the overlap is between partners rather than forms, what happens if two partners introduce the same company applies; for co-hosted outreach, settle these points first with the attribution questions for a joint campaign.
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.
If the company has not applied yet, agree with its CEO who files the one application, then register as a partner, confirm the company meets the criteria on who qualifies and keep the program terms open at the duplicate rules.