This is a coordination method, not a reading of any fund's documents and not legal advice. Only each fund's own compliance team can say what its policy allows, and the tree below starts from their written answer.
Who links the funds to the company, and where the CEO's permission sits
Three facts come before anyone opens a policy manual, because each can end the exercise.
- Has the company already been in touch with SourceX? Section 3 of the terms treats any earlier application, lead, account or email exchange between the company and SourceX as a prior relationship, so no fund would be credited. The company simply continues directly, and the policy question disappears.
- Who does the CEO actually talk to? Write down each person in either fund who has a working relationship with the CEO, and how often they speak. A board seat is a relationship; a shareholding is not.
- Does the CEO know about the idea and want the conversation? SourceX's screening page lists introductions made without the decision maker's knowledge among those that are usually not a fit. Under the program the CEO authorizes a licensing discussion, and neither fund's stake or seat can say yes on the company's behalf. If the company has since been acquired, the acquirer's CEO decides for it.
Funding is not one of SourceX's checks, so being co-owned by two funds tells you nothing about whether the company fits. It only tells you how many people might want to raise the subject.
The mixed-policy collaboration decision tree
Inputs. Each fund files its own written policy under one of five answers, with the date and the name of whoever in compliance gave it. Nobody files the other fund's policy for it.
| Answer | What the fund's written policy says |
|---|---|
| A. Permits | A partner may accept a referral reward personally |
| B. Consent first | A partner may accept one after documented consent or disclosure |
| C. Firm only | Any reward must be paid to the firm, not to an individual |
| D. Forbids | Nobody at the fund may accept one |
| E. Silent | The policy does not address it, or compliance has not answered yet |
Some professional codes work the way answer B does. CFA Institute's Standard IV(B), for its members and candidates, says they "must not accept gifts, benefits, compensation, or consideration that competes with or might reasonably be expected to create a conflict of interest with their employer's interest unless they obtain written consent from all parties involved," and its guidance treats a documented email as written consent. Your fund's own wording governs, not this example.
The tree. Run it once per company, with the relationship owner from step 2 above.
| Branch | Relationship owner's answer | Who introduces | What the other fund does | Stop if |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A. Permits | The owner signs the Channel Partner Agreement and sends one written introduction | Stays out of the outreach and hears what the CEO allows | The CEO prefers someone else |
| 2 | B. Consent first | The owner, once the documented consent is on file | Same as branch 1 | Consent is refused or not yet given |
| 3 | C. Firm only | The firm signs the agreement as the partner; the owner introduces on its behalf | Same as branch 1 | The firm's policy also bars the firm from receiving it |
| 4 | D. Forbids | Either a plain mention with no partner link, after which the company applies itself and nobody is credited, or nobody until SourceX has answered a written question about an introducer who cannot accept payment | Does not step in as a substitute introducer | Anyone proposes the other fund "holds" the reward |
| 5 | E. Silent | Nobody yet: treat it as branch 4 until compliance answers in writing | Waits | Someone suggests going ahead and asking later |
The move the tree never allows. If the restricted fund's partner owns the CEO relationship and the permitted fund introduces only because it can be paid, the introduction is a proxy. Any value passed back, in cash, a fee discount or a favor owed, is exactly what the restricted fund's policy is written to stop. The permitted fund introduces only when the CEO would choose it on its own standing.
The published terms are silent on what becomes of a reward that a credited introducer will not take. That is why branch 4 offers a plain mention or a written question to SourceX, and never an assumed answer.
One introducer, chosen for standing rather than for policy
A policy decides who may sign. It does not decide whom the CEO wants to hear from. When those point at different people, honesty beats convenience: the person the CEO trusts makes a plain mention without a link, or the funds wait for SourceX's written answer. Swapping in a better-paid messenger the CEO barely knows is the proxy move by another route.
Whoever ends up as the introducer carries the whole job:
- Signs first. Section 1 of the terms puts the Channel Partner Agreement before any submission.
- Writes it down. Section 1.2 of the sample agreement wants each introduction recorded in writing, and credit is decided from dated records, so the introducer keeps the note of who agreed to what and when.
- Handles nothing. Section 4.2 gives a partner no authority to share the company's inventory, records or personal information. Both funds stay out of the company's systems.
- Answers for it. Questions from SourceX about the introduction go to this one person, not to whichever fund happens to be on the call.
If two people end up introducing the same company anyway, credit is settled from the dated records; what happens if two partners introduce the same company explains the review.
What each fund may hear afterward, and what each may be paid
Updates. The credited partner receives what it reasonably needs to follow its own referral and reward, in generic stages or reference codes (sections 3.4 and 4.6 of the sample agreement). Section 7 of the terms keeps every partner away from other partners' records. The other fund learns what the CEO chooses to tell it, nothing more, so agree now that neither fund asks the company for progress reports on the other's behalf.
Money. SourceX pays one partner: on the company's first qualifying transaction, the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap, and a parent with its subsidiaries counts as one company, so the USD 50,000 floor applies once to that company. Further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Illustrative: if SourceX paid the company $250,000 under its signed agreement, the first-transaction reward would be $62,500; at $400,000 it would be $70,000. The other fund receives nothing from SourceX, and the terms describe no division between funds. Any side arrangement is outside SourceX's terms and has to survive both funds' policies; under answer D there is nothing to share. The reward is SourceX's own payment, made separately, and nothing for the partner comes off the compensation in the company's agreement.
Funds that do plan to share should read whether two funds can collaborate without promising a split and, for answer C, why a firm's internal allocation needs its own agreement. The approval request itself is covered in compliance approval for an outside referral arrangement.
Two co-investors and a 260-person cleaning contractor (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Both funds and the company are fictional, and no outcome is implied.
Fund Ridge and Fund Lantern both hold board seats in a 260-person commercial cleaning contractor with eleven years of site inspection and complaint records. Ridge's policy is answer B; Lantern's is answer D. The CEO speaks with Lantern's partner every week and with Ridge's associate twice a year.
The tree points at Lantern's partner, and branch 4 applies. Ridge offers to introduce "so the reward stays in the syndicate". Lantern's compliance lead calls that a proxy, and Ridge withdraws the offer. On the next weekly call, Lantern's partner mentions that SourceX exists and how its process starts, with no link. Two weeks later the company applies on its own. No fund is credited, one message reached the CEO, and neither policy was bent.
Change one fact. If the CEO's close relationship had been with Ridge's partner, branch 2 would apply: Ridge files the documented consent, its partner signs and introduces, and Lantern stays out. With the company paid $250,000 on its first qualifying transaction, Ridge's partner would receive $62,500 and Lantern nothing.
Fit facts either fund can confirm by asking the CEO
Ask the CEO; neither fund opens a file. Four things matter: a full-time workforce that peaked at 50 or more people, with contractors left out; a history of records the company produced in its own operations; clear standing to license that history; and a chief executive who wants to talk. 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. Only SourceX's review decides whether the records match a current program. The reward rules in plain terms are in the rewards policy explainer.
Limits of a five-answer sort
- Real policies are messier. Some cap amounts, require approval per deal or treat fees near portfolio companies under the fund's partnership agreement. Five answers are a sorting aid; compliance decides.
- The CEO may want neither fund. Then neither introduces, and the company can still apply directly.
- The open question stays open. What SourceX does with an introducer who will not take payment is not published, and no page on this site can answer it for SourceX.
- Our thesis is untested. We expect that funds which file their policies before contacting the company send fewer duplicate messages and avoid proxy introductions. No data on this has been published.
- Programs and terms change. This page reflects terms version 2026-11-04.
Methods note. The tree draws on four documents read on 2026-10-27: SourceX's referral terms (version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04), the unsigned partner agreement sample (version 2026-10-19), SourceX's screening page and CFA Institute's Standard IV(B). It measures nothing about demand, record quality or payouts. To test it, log for each co-held company the policy answers filed, the branch taken, the number of messages the CEO received and any duplicate review.
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 the tree lands on a branch with a named introducer and a written policy answer behind it, that person should open a partner account, confirm the company against who qualifies and read sections 2, 3 and 4 of the program terms before the CEO hears anything. The portfolio side of the program is set out for venture platform teams.
Filing policies and choosing an introducer is referral work. A fund that wants to look at SourceX as a potential investment is making a separate decision, and can request materials 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.