# Unpaid referral path: a client-value business case | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/a-client-first-business-case-for-an-unpaid-referral-path
Last updated: 2026-11-05

An unpaid referral path is worth offering when the client gets a real, low-cost option and your firm's effort and trust exposure stay small, with compensation scored at zero. Be clear about what declining does not do: SourceX pays any partner reward separately and never deducts it from the company's compensation, so taking nothing adds nothing to your client's payout. The case has to rest on usefulness, independence and simplicity, and it should be written down before anyone mentions money.

## The client's problem, and how small your part is

The client's problem is easy to state. It may hold years of its own operating records that could be licensed for AI training and evaluation, and it has no time to find out whether they would qualify. The decision belongs to the CEO, and any license is between the company and SourceX. Your part is narrower: notice that a client might fit, explain the option in a few sentences and step back.

That part stays small because the first step is small. SourceX's company application describes three screens and about seven minutes to check fit, asks for no files and no passwords or API tokens, and licenses or transfers nothing at that stage; it also says applying is no promise of an offer or payment. On the partner side, SourceX's process page says the introducer does not need to export, upload or describe confidential records, and that the company controls whether to proceed and on what terms. An unpaid adviser therefore never touches the records, the negotiation or the money.

## What the unpaid path is, and what it is not

**The unpaid path.** You tell the CEO that SourceX exists and what its screen looks for. The company applies on its own. Your firm signs nothing, registers nothing, tracks nothing and receives nothing.

**Not the same thing: registering, then refusing the reward.** The published terms (version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04) do not describe waiving or redirecting a reward. If your firm wants to introduce through a partner link but take nothing, settle that in writing with SourceX before signing the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement.

**A one-way door.** The path is chosen client by client, and it closes the other option for that client. After a company has applied on its own, SourceX already holds its application, and the terms send any later introduction of it to duplicate review, where it is not credited.

**Not a rules question.** Some professionals may not accept referral compensation at all. [How to introduce a company when you can't take a fee](/guides/decline-referral-fee) and the [CPA attest-client comparison](/compare/cpa-referral-fee-attest-client) cover those rules. This page assumes your firm could take a reward and asks a different question: does the case hold without it?

## The non-compensation value assessment

Seven lines, each scored 0, 1 or 2, with compensation fixed at zero. On every line a higher score is better for the decision, including the two cost lines.

| Line | The question | 2 points | 1 point | 0 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Fit evidence | How much do you already know about the published fit facts? | All four known and passing | Some still unknown | One clearly fails |
| 2. Client cost | What will it cost the client to find out? | A short fit check the CEO can run alone | The check plus some internal digging | Weeks of internal work before anyone can answer |
| 3. Timing | Is there a dated reason to raise it now? | A documented migration, archive deletion or retention change | General interest in AI | None |
| 4. Fit with the engagement | Would the client expect you to raise it? | It follows from work you already do on their systems or records | Adjacent to your work | Unrelated to why they hired you |
| 5. Value of staying unpaid | Does visible independence help this client? | The client has asked about conflicts, or your role rests on independence | Neutral | The client expects advisers to be paid and does not mind |
| 6. Firm effort | How many hours to explain and answer follow-up? | Under an hour | A few hours | Ongoing hand-holding |
| 7. Trust exposure | If the company is declined, what happens to your standing? | Nothing: you offered an option and said it might not fit | Mild disappointment | You would be seen as having promised something |
| Reward | Not scored | Fixed at zero | Fixed at zero | Fixed at zero |

**Reading rule (Illustrative threshold).** Offer the unpaid path to a client when line 1 scores at least 1, line 7 is not 0 and the total reaches 9 of 14. Replace the threshold with your own, but set it before you score anyone.

**The sensitivity test.** After scoring, put the reward back in your head. If it turns a "no" into a "yes", the decision is about money, not the client. That is a legitimate decision, but it is a sales-channel decision, and it brings the disclosure duties of a paid path with it.

## Same client outcome, two ways to take part

The comparison that matters to a client-first firm is how little changes for the client.

| Point | Unpaid path | Registered, disclosed partner |
|---|---|---|
| What the client goes through | The same application, review and agreement | The same application, review and agreement |
| What the client is paid | Unchanged | Unchanged: the reward is paid separately and never deducted |
| Firm paperwork | None | The SourceX Channel Partner Agreement before any introduction: one-year term, 30 days' notice to end, contact protection for six months afterward, confidentiality for three years |
| Disclosure | No payment to disclose, though other ties to SourceX would still need mention | The reward, wherever the firm recommends the program |
| Credit | None now, and none later for that company | The earliest valid introduction inside the 90-day window, credited on the company's verified application |
| Firm tracking | None | Each introduction and its status |
| If the company is declined | Nothing owed by anyone | Nothing owed by anyone |

On disclosure, FTC staff guidance on the Endorsement Guides treats a connection the audience would not expect, usually a financial one, as something to disclose clearly and conspicuously, and FTC materials also count personal, family and employment ties (our paraphrase). Staying unpaid removes the financial connection; it does not remove the others. For the paid route, see [whether you have to disclose a referral fee](/questions/do-i-have-to-disclose-a-referral-fee).

## Three firms score their clients (Illustrative)

Illustrative. Fictional firms and scores; no real clients.

- **Firm A, a 14-person CPA practice** focused on tax and advisory work. Four clients passed 50 full-time employees at their peak, and one CEO asked last month whether old job-costing records were worth anything. That client scores 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2.
- **Firm B, a managed IT provider** with 35 mid-sized clients, six of them moving off an old ticketing system in the next two quarters. A typical migration client scores 1, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 1: its timing is real, but nobody there cares whether the adviser is paid, and the follow-up questions would land on the firm's engineers.
- **Firm C, a marketing agency** whose clients are mostly well short of 50 full-time employees at peak. Line 1 scores 0 for nearly every client.

| Firm | Score | Decision | Reason on file |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 12 of 14 | Keep it client by client | One client asked; independence matters to the practice; no program needed |
| B | 9 of 14 for migration clients | Pilot with two clients | The migration dates make timing real; effort is the unknown |
| C | Line 1 at 0 | Decline | No client meets the size fact, so a mention would waste a CEO's time |

## Pilot, keep, widen or drop, with the reason written down

| Decision | Choose it when | Write down | Revisit when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot | Two or three clients clear the threshold and at least one has a dated event | Which clients, the hours you will allow, the question you will ask them afterward | The pilot clients have run the fit check or said no |
| Keep | Clients clear the threshold only now and then, with no pattern | That you raise it client by client and score each one first | A client with a dated event appears |
| Widen | Pilot clients said the mention was useful and effort stayed inside the hours allowed | That widening means scoring more clients, not pitching harder | Effort or client feedback changes |
| Drop | Line 1 is 0 across the book, or line 7 is 0 for the clients who fit | The reason, in one sentence | Your client mix changes |

No client interviews or pilot results for this assessment have been published, so there are no figures to quote yet. Measure your own: after each mention, record whether the CEO ran the fit check, ask whether the mention was useful, and log the hours your firm spent. Three numbers per client are enough to tell keep from drop after a quarter.

## Which clients deserve even an unpaid mention

Score only clients that could plausibly pass the published facts: a peak of 50+ full-time employees (contractors do not count), an operating history on record, the rights to license what they hold and a contact with authority to act. 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. Licensing talks need the CEO's authorization, and the CEO signs for the company, so the mention goes to the CEO or through someone the CEO trusts. Keep your questions at metadata level: what the records are, roughly how many, how far back, which system. Records the company keeps for its own clients are usually a poor fit. What stays unknown until SourceX reviews the company: whether the records match a current program, whether customer contracts limit reuse and what any license would cover.

## Where scoring without the reward misleads

- **It undervalues your time.** A firm that makes many mentions a year may find the unpaid path costs more than it admits; the hours line is where that shows.
- **It ignores what a reward could fund.** A disclosed, paid route can pay for better follow-through, and some clients would rather their adviser be paid openly than help for free.
- **Scores are judgments.** Two partners can score the same client differently. Agree on the anchors before scoring.
- **Independence is not automatic.** An unpaid adviser with another tie to SourceX is not independent.

For the wider question of whether to take part at all, see [should your firm add a data referral program](/guides/should-your-firm-add-a-data-referral-program), test it against your [existing client promise](/guides/a-data-referral-program-should-fit-your-existing-client-promise), and know [when to decline an attractive-looking referral program](/guides/when-to-decline-an-attractive-looking-referral-program).

## 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 your assessment favors a registered, disclosed route for some clients, [register for a partner link](/register) before mentioning SourceX to them; if it favors the unpaid path, check each client against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) first. Either way, read the [program terms](/terms) so you know what each path closes off, and browse the other [partner guides](/guides) for the decisions around it.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://sourcex.si/apply
- https://refer.sourcex.si/how-it-works
- https://refer.sourcex.si/who-qualifies
- https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking