# Data referral rejection reasons study | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/data-referral-rejection-reasons-study
Last updated: 2026-11-05

A referral program should report declined introductions the way clinical and systematic-review standards report exclusions: state the eligible sample first, code each decline with one primary reason from a written taxonomy, record the stage where it happened, and show the counts in a flow from entry to outcome. Attribution outcomes, such as duplicates, and companies that withdrew are reported separately, because neither is a judgment about the company's records.

## How should a referral program report reasons for declining company introductions?

With a denominator, a fixed taxonomy and one primary code per case, laid out stage by stage. A list of "common reasons" with no counts and no sample tells partners nothing they can act on.

The PRISMA statement for systematic reviews offers a tested template. Its flow diagram maps the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions; its expanded checklist asks authors to give the primary reason each excluded report failed the criteria, and to report automated exclusions separately from those made by people. CONSORT 2025 guidance for trials asks for the number assessed for eligibility and reasons for exclusion. A decline report for company introductions needs the same three things: who was eligible to be counted, why each case left, and at which step.

## The taxonomy: codes, definitions and who could have checked

This is the evidence asset for this page: a proposed coding scheme built from the program's own criteria. Each code has a definition tight enough that two reviewers would assign the same one.

| Code | Reason | Stage | Could the partner have checked it at metadata level? |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Fewer than 50 full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded) | Eligibility | Yes, from headcount history |
| E2 | No documented operating history | Eligibility | Partly, from years trading and record span |
| E3 | Outside the qualifying geography, or below 70% English where that applies | Eligibility | Yes, from country and language of operations |
| R1 | Records owned by clients or restricted by contract | Rights | Partly: ask whether client contracts restrict reuse |
| R2 | Privacy or consent terms the company cannot resolve | Rights | Partly: ask what customers were told |
| A1 | No authorized contact able to discuss a license | Authority | Yes: ask who signs data agreements |
| D1 | No current dataset demand for these records | Data fit | No: known only after SourceX review |
| D2 | Volume or history too thin for the dataset selected | Data fit | Partly, from rough counts and years |
| X | Other, with a free-text note | Any | Not applicable |

Two groups are deliberately outside the decline codes:

| Code | Outcome | Why it is not a company decline |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | Duplicate or pre-existing introduction | Attribution outcome under duplicate review; the company may still proceed |
| T2 | Introduction outside the 90-day attribution window | Attribution outcome about timing, not the company |
| T3 | Partner had not signed the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting | Partner-side requirement |
| W | Company withdrew | The company's choice, not a review decision |

Mixing these into the decline counts is the most common way a reasons report misleads. A partner who sees "duplicates" ranked as a top decline reason will conclude companies are being rejected when they are, in fact, being credited elsewhere. The [one-partner rule and duplicate review](/questions/what-happens-if-two-partners-introduce-the-same-company) explain those outcomes.

## A worked report from a fictional cohort

Illustrative only. These counts are invented to show the format; they are not SourceX data. The same fictional cohort is used in the [conversion benchmark design](/guides/data-referral-conversion-benchmark).

Attribution, counted on 40 introductions submitted in the entry quarter: 4 duplicates (T1) and 2 outside the window (T2). Of the 34 attributable introductions, 30 companies completed a verified application. Those 30 are the eligible sample for decline reasons.

| Stage | Entered | Declined | Codes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility | 30 | 7 | E1: 4, E3: 2, E2: 1 |
| Rights and authority | 23 | 6 | R1: 4, R2: 1, A1: 1 |
| Data fit | 17 | 4 | D1: 3, D2: 1 |
| Remaining | 13 | Not applicable | 3 paid, 4 withdrew (W), 6 still open |

Read the table top to bottom and every number reconciles: 30 minus 7, 6 and 4 leaves 13. A reader can also see what partners could influence. In this fictional cohort, 7 of 17 declines (E1, E3 and A1) were fully checkable at metadata level before introduction, while D1 was not checkable by anyone outside SourceX's review.

## Reporting rules that keep the study honest

1. **Publish the eligible sample.** State the entry window, the event that admits a case (a verified application), and the count.
2. **One primary code per decline.** Secondary codes may be listed, but percentages are computed on primary codes so they sum to 100%.
3. **Record the stage.** A rights decline after a long review means something different from an early eligibility decline.
4. **Keep Other small.** If X grows beyond a small share, read the notes and add a defined code in the next taxonomy version.
5. **Audit the coding.** Have a second reviewer code a sample independently and publish how often the two agreed.
6. **Version the taxonomy.** When a code is added or split, say which cohorts used which version.
7. **Separate people from rules.** Following PRISMA's advice on automation, report declines made by an automatic rule (for example a headcount filter) apart from reviewer decisions.

The [rewards page](/rewards) commits that when a reward is canceled or reversed, the reason is always recorded, which is the raw material for this report. The partner's view of a single declined case is covered in [understanding why a referral was declined](/guides/how-to-understand-why-a-company-referral-was-declined), and what an accepted case looks like is set out in [the approved company referral example](/resources/approved-company-referral).

## How a partner avoids the checkable declines

Screen at metadata level before introducing. 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.

Confirm 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, that the company's own records (not its clients') are what would be licensed, and who could authorize a licensing discussion. Note which systems hold the records and roughly how many years they cover. Never ask for samples, exports or credentials. What stays unknown until SourceX reviews the company: dataset demand (D1), the rights review result and any offer.

## Declines and the reward

Rewards are a share of the compensation SourceX actually pays the company you referred (the Actual Supplier Payout), with no cap, subject to the program terms. SourceX pays rewards separately; they never reduce the company's payout. If a payout is later reduced or reversed, the reward falls proportionately. Illustrative only: an Actual Supplier Payout of $120,000 would mean a reward of $56,000.

## 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.

Most eligibility declines can be caught before an introduction, so [register as a partner](/register), run the company through [who qualifies](/who-qualifies), and check attribution rules in the [program terms](/terms) before you submit. More studies are in the [guides hub](/guides).

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://refer.sourcex.si/rewards
- https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-flow-diagram
- https://www.prisma-statement.org/s/PRISMA_2020_expanded_checklist-yc78.pdf
- https://www.consort-spirit.org/item-22a-randomized