It is written for a VC platform manager whose venture partners, LP principals, portfolio founders and scouts sit in several countries. Pages on particular codes already exist, from the profession-by-profession table to separate pages on the IESBA Code, ICAEW's code, APES 110 and CPA Canada's rules. This page repeats none of them. It is the register that tells you which person needs which of those conversations, and with whom.
What SourceX's documents settle, and what they leave to the person paid
SourceX's own documents contain four lines that matter here. Section 5 of the terms lists the conditions for paying a reward and ends: "payment must also be lawful." Schedule A of the sample Channel Partner Agreement says SourceX will "Document any delay caused solely by missing required details or a lawful payment restriction and pay promptly once resolved." Section 7.3 of the same agreement says "Delaware law governs this Agreement, excluding its conflict-of-laws principles and subject to mandatory law that cannot be waived." And the how it works page says: "Referral partners can join from most countries. We can't work with partners in countries or regions under U.S. sanctions or on U.S. restricted-party lists."
None of them tells an individual what their own rules require; they show the program leaves room for such rules.
| Question | Where the answer comes from |
|---|---|
| How the reward is calculated, capped and triggered | The program terms, sections 4 and 5 |
| Whether a rule limits the recipient accepting it, or requires disclosure | The recipient's own adviser, professional body or regulator |
| Whether the company's location and record language fit | SourceX's published sentence, then SourceX's review |
| Whether the company wants a conversation at all | The company's CEO |
| Whether a registered partner can turn a reward down | SourceX, in writing; the published terms are silent on it |
| Who is credited when several people know the company | SourceX's duplicate review, working from dated records |
The company stays out of the argument: section 4 says the reward "is paid separately by SourceX and is never deducted from the supplier's agreed compensation", and SourceX funds it from its own share, so whatever a recipient's rules require, the company's amount does not move.
Four location facts that never merge
Write these down separately for every company, because each one drives different questions:
- Where the person who could be paid lives and practices, and which professional bodies or licences they hold, in their own words. This fact drives the professional, tax and sanctions questions.
- Their role toward the company: none, investor, board member, adviser, auditor, supplier or employee. A role can add duties that no address would.
- Where the company that holds the records sits, and what language its records are in. SourceX publishes one sentence for this, quoted exactly: 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.
- Who decides for that company: its CEO; after an acquisition, the acquirer's CEO; before a sale closes, the target's CEO.
A Singapore address on fact 1 says nothing about fact 3, and a board seat on fact 2 adds questions under fact 1 without changing fact 4. When the founder and the records company sit in different countries, the sponsor-owner jurisdiction map splits those lines further.
The jurisdiction review issue register
Give each person who could be paid one row, and give the fund or firm its own row if the entity would register as the partner.
| Column | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Where they practice | Countries of residence and practice, plus each body or licence, as the person states them |
| Role toward the company | From fact 2 |
| Rule families to raise | Codes from the table below |
| Who answers | The named adviser, body, regulator or compliance function |
| Asked, answered | Two dates; an undated answer does not count |
| Route | Paid, unpaid, hold or no introduction |
Rule families are phrased as questions for the person's own adviser; the register names them and never answers them.
| Code | Kind of rule | Question to put to their own adviser | Usually answered by |
|---|---|---|---|
| P | Professional conduct codes | Does a code I am bound by address referral fees or commissions in my role, and on what conditions? | Their professional body's guidance and their adviser |
| D | Disclosure and consent | Must I tell the company, or a client of mine, about this interest, and in what form and when? | Their adviser |
| I | Independence and conflicts | Does an audit, assurance or fiduciary relationship with this company limit what I may accept? | Their firm's ethics function or regulator |
| L | Licensing for pay tied to a transaction | Does receiving pay linked to a deal require a registration or licence where I work? | Their counsel or regulator; see whether you need a license to receive a referral fee |
| E | Employer, partnership or fund policy | Do my contract, partnership agreement, fund documents or compliance manual restrict outside pay or require it to be shared or offset? | Their compliance function; see compliance approval for an outside referral arrangement |
| T | Tax and reporting | How is a payment from a U.S. company treated where I live, and what must I report? | Their tax adviser |
| C | Confidentiality | Did I learn about this company through a board seat or an engagement that limits what I may say or do? | Their adviser |
| S | Sanctions and restricted parties | Am I in a place, or on a list, that stops SourceX working with me? | SourceX applies its published line; their own counsel for their side |
What a family P answer can look like, from a rule-maker's own page: paragraph 5.1 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs covers referrals a solicitor makes and introductions they receive. In paraphrase, it requires that clients are told about any financial or other interest the solicitor, their business or employer has in referring the client to another person, and it sets conditions on fee-sharing arrangements, including that the agreement is in writing. Whether it reaches a given solicitor's introduction of a company is for that solicitor and the SRA's guidance to say, never a platform team.
A multinational example with its unknowns left open (Illustrative)
Illustrative. A generic fund and company; every fact is invented, and no row describes what any rule says.
A fund with its platform team in London hears that a 420-person claims administrator headquartered in Pune may have long operating records. Four people in the network know the company:
| Row | Who could be paid | Where they practice, as stated | Role toward the company | Families | Who answers | Status | Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The fund's management company | United Kingdom | Investor elsewhere; no role here | E, T | Fund counsel | Asked day 1; open | Hold |
| 2 | A venture partner | Singapore; member of an accounting body | None | P, D, T | Her adviser and her body's guidance | Asked day 1; open | Hold |
| 3 | An LP's principal | Canada | Sits on the company's board | C, D, E | Her own counsel | Not yet asked | Hold |
| 4 | A portfolio founder | United States | Supplier to the company | E, D | His company's counsel | Asked day 2; open | Hold |
The company's own facts sit on a separate line: located in India, so the 70% English condition in SourceX's sentence applies; its English share has not been stated by the company; its CEO decides; SourceX reviews.
Three things are now visible. No route can be chosen yet, which is the honest state of the file. Four people know the company but only one introduction can be credited, so the team agrees who asks before anyone does; if two approach anyway, SourceX's duplicate review decides from dated records. And row 3's knowledge came through a board seat. What the principal learned there may prompt one question to the company's own CEO, and nothing more: it never travels to the fund, to the other rows or to any other company.
Who asks is chosen by relationship, not by who can be paid. If the person the CEO trusts most is waiting on an answer, they can mention SourceX to the CEO without registering, and the company can apply on its own; its payment is the same either way.
Routing each question to the person who can answer it
Families P, D, I, L, E, T and C go to the recipient's own adviser, professional body or regulator. SourceX answers questions about its program, never about anyone's own rules; the company's CEO answers only whether the company wants the conversation; and the platform team keeps the register and the dates while ruling on nothing. A note the recipient can send their adviser, adapted to their facts:
I may receive a referral reward from SourceX Inc., a Delaware company, for introducing the CEO of a company to SourceX's data licensing program. SourceX would pay it under published terms (refer.sourcex.si/terms), not the company. Where I live and practice: [ ]. Bodies and licences I hold: [ ]. My role toward the company: [ ]. Does any rule that applies to me restrict this, set conditions on it, or require me to disclose it, and to whom?
Record a route or a no-fit outcome
| Route | When it applies | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| Paid | A dated written answer permits it, and any required disclosure is made | The person registers, signs the Channel Partner Agreement and only then submits |
| Unpaid | The person prefers not to be paid, or an answer rules pay out | They may tell the CEO about SourceX without registering, and the company may apply itself |
| Hold | An answer is pending | Nobody approaches the CEO about a paid introduction yet |
| No introduction | A rule, duty or conflict rules out any involvement | Log the family code and the date, not private reasons |
A company can also miss on its own facts, whatever anyone's rules say: location and record language outside the published sentence, a full-time peak below 50, or records that belong to its clients. Log "no fit with the published criteria as of [date]"; SourceX applies each program's own criteria, so a company that misses one program may fit another later.
Where this register can fail
- Rules and memberships change. Date every answer; ask again after a change of role, employer or country.
- Self-reported facts are incomplete. A forgotten licence or membership never reaches the register.
- Advisers in two countries can disagree. Record both answers; the person whose pay it is decides.
- A complete register is not compliance. It proves the questions were asked, not that any answer was right.
- Delay has a cost. A long hold can outlast the CEO's interest, though the CEO can always apply directly.
Methods note. The register is built from SourceX's program terms (version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), the sample Channel Partner Agreement (version 2026-10-19), the how-it-works and who-qualifies pages, and the SRA's code page, all read on 2026-10-27. It measures nothing. No data exist on how often local rules limit referral pay in SourceX's program, and this page claims none.
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 register row shows a dated answer that permits pay, register as a partner, confirm the company against who qualifies and read the program terms before anyone contacts its CEO. Other guides for cross-border networks are collected in the guides hub.
Keeping a register for introductions is referral work; judging whether SourceX itself is worth investing in is a separate exercise, and materials for it 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.