Two partners arriving at one company is ordinary. An accountant and an M&A advisor serve the same owner; a fund's operating partner and a software consultant both sit in its CEO's inbox. The rules were written for exactly this collision, and they are short.
Which introduction counts when two arrive for one company?
The earliest one that passes every validity check, judged from records with dates on them. Six provisions in SourceX's own documents govern the collision.
| Source | What it says | What it decides |
|---|---|---|
| Terms, section 2 | Credit attaches at the company's verified application; it belongs to whichever valid introduction of a previously unknown company came first within the 90-day window; one partner per company | There is one winner, and the application is the moment of decision |
| Terms, section 2 | Attribution is decided from dated records; an earlier link click alone does not decide credit | Evidence beats whoever's link the form carried |
| Terms, section 3 | Companies with an existing application, relationship or earlier valid introduction are reviewed as duplicates and not credited to a later partner; any earlier lead, account or email correspondence counts as a relationship | A company SourceX already knew is no one's |
| Partner agreement, 1.2 | Introductions are recorded in writing: portal submission, tracked application, email or acknowledged log; oral introductions must be confirmed in writing | A phone call alone is not yet a record |
| Partner agreement, 3.3 | Each introduction record identifies the company, domain, partner, opportunity, method and timestamps; competing claims are reviewed against dated evidence | What a complete record contains |
| Schedule A, section 2 | The verified application must arrive within 90 days of the recorded introduction | Each introduction carries its own clock |
The first valid referrer versus last touch comparison explains why programs built on personal introductions use this kind of rule. This page is about applying it when the claim is contested.
Rebuild the timeline before arguing about it
Disputes go wrong when each partner argues from memory. Before anyone writes to SourceX, put every event on one dated line, including the ones that hurt your case:
- The company's identity. Legal name, website domain, and any registration number you can see publicly. Two partners sometimes "refer the same company" when one introduced a holding company and the other its operating subsidiary. For the cap the whole group is one company, so a holding company and its subsidiaries share a single $100,000 limit; review decides which partner is credited for separate entities in one group. A renamed company needs a fixed identifier, as the rebrand evidence worksheet shows.
- Your agreement date. The date you signed the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement, which the terms require before you submit any introduction.
- Your first contact and the CEO's opt-in. When you raised it, with whom, and when the CEO agreed to be introduced.
- Your written introduction. The sent email, the portal submission, or both.
- The application. When the company applied, and through whose link if any.
- What you cannot see. SourceX's own history with the company. You will not know whether its controller emailed SourceX last year; SourceX checks that itself.
The first-valid-referral evidence checklist
Seven checks, each with the evidence that answers it and the term that governs it. An introduction that fails any of them is not the first valid one, however early it was.
| # | Check | Evidence that answers it | Governing term | Who holds the evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is it the same company? | Legal name, domain and a public identifier for both claims | Partner agreement 3.3 | Both partners, from public records |
| 2 | Was the company new to SourceX? | SourceX's records of any earlier application, lead, account or email correspondence | Terms, section 3 | SourceX only |
| 3 | Could the partner submit on that date? | The signed Channel Partner Agreement and its date | Terms, section 1 | The partner |
| 4 | Was the introduction recorded in writing? | Portal submission, tracked application, sent email or acknowledged log | Partner agreement 1.2 | The partner and SourceX |
| 5 | Did it reach the CEO, who knew about it? | An email addressed to the CEO that records the opt-in | Who-qualifies: introductions without the decision maker's knowledge are usually not a fit | The partner |
| 6 | Can its date be proven? | The email's Date and Message-ID headers; the portal timestamp | Terms, section 2: dated records | The partner and SourceX |
| 7 | Did a verified application follow within 90 days? | The application date set against the introduction date | Schedule A, section 2 | SourceX |
Two notes on the evidence. Under the Internet Message Format standard, an email's Date field records when its creator marked it complete and ready to send, and its Message-ID is a globally unique identifier, so an unedited sent email with headers fixes who wrote to whom, and when. And a click log is missing from the list on purpose: the terms say an earlier click alone does not decide credit. How a written introduction weighs against a tagged application is covered in depth in written introduction versus referral link attribution.
Three timelines, three different governing terms (Illustrative)
Illustrative: invented partners and companies, dates set in 2027 under the current terms. Each timeline turns on a different term.
Timeline A: the earlier written introduction against the later tagged application. A 260-person industrial distributor.
| Date | Event | Check it answers |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Jan 2027 | Partner 1, a fractional CFO, emails the CEO after a call in which the CEO agreed, and submits in the portal the same day | Checks 3 to 6 |
| 28 Jan 2027 | Partner 2, an M&A advisor, sends a link to the COO | A click, and an introduction to someone other than the CEO |
| 12 Feb 2027 | The COO applies through partner 2's link | The application arrives tagged to partner 2 |
| 12 Feb 2027 | Day 32 after partner 1's recorded introduction | Check 7 passes for partner 1 |
Governing term: section 2, dated records over clicks. The evidence favors partner 1, and duplicate review makes the decision.
Timeline B: two partners, and SourceX already knew the company. A 410-person engineering firm. In November 2026 its controller had emailed SourceX about licensing and received a reply. Partner 1 introduces the CEO on 18 Jan 2027, partner 2 on 2 Feb, and the company applies on 15 Feb. Governing term: section 3. The November correspondence is a relationship, so the company was not new and neither partner is credited. Neither partner could have known; this is check 2, and only SourceX holds it.
Timeline C: the first partner's window ran out. A 190-person claims administrator. Partner 1 introduces the CEO on 4 Jan 2027; the company does not apply, and 4 Apr 2027 is day 90. Partner 2 introduces the CEO on 10 May, and the company applies on 24 May. Governing terms: Schedule A, section 2 and terms, section 3, read together. Partner 1's introduction cannot be credited, because the application came after its 90 days. Section 3 also says a company with an earlier valid introduction, or any earlier lead or email correspondence with SourceX, is not credited to a later partner. Read plainly, partner 2 should not count on the credit either. This one goes to review, and neither partner should book it.
What the rules do not do
- They do not split credit. One partner per company, and no provision for dividing a reward. Illustrative arithmetic: if the company's Actual Supplier Payout eventually totaled $250,000, the credited partner's reward would be $62,500 and the other partner's nothing. That is an example of the formula, not a forecast.
- They do not show you the other file. Partners never receive access to other partners' records, and SourceX explains a decision with reference codes and status rather than the competing evidence.
- They do not move with SourceX's own contact. SourceX may talk to the company directly without affecting valid attribution.
- They do not stretch the window. Contact protection under the partner agreement runs on a separate clock and does not extend the 90 days; attribution versus contact protection draws both clocks.
- They do not change with where a partner lives. A partner abroad and a partner next door face the same rule; partners outside the United States covers the participation side.
Send the minimum evidence for a review
Write to [email protected], the address the terms and Schedule A give for disputes, with the referral details and five items, no more:
- Company identity: legal name, domain and the public identifier you used for check 1.
- Your signed agreement date.
- The sent introduction email, unedited, with its headers, addressed to the CEO and recording the opt-in.
- Your portal submission reference and its timestamp.
- One line on the opt-in conversation: date, who, what was agreed.
Leave out everything else. No client records or exports, no screenshots of anyone's inbox, and nothing belonging to the other partner, which you should not have. The partner agreement adds one rule worth following before a dispute starts: a dispute must not erase original evidence, so keep originals untouched. A standing log built from the company introduction record template makes this a five-minute task.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
The cheapest way to win a duplicate review is never to need one: sign the agreement first, introduce the CEO in writing the day they agree, and submit the same day. Before the next shared prospect surfaces, register as a partner, screen the company on the who qualifies page and keep sections 2, 3 and 7 of the program terms to hand; the guides hub collects further attribution cases.