# Founder permission vs corporate authority | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/the-difference-between-a-founder-yes-and-corporate-authorization
Last updated: 2026-11-04

Permission and authority answer different questions. Permission is a person's consent to what you do with their name and the facts they told you. Authority is the power to commit the company to a licensing discussion, and in this program it sits with the CEO. A founder's yes can carry either, both or neither. Submit an introduction only when the CEO wants the conversation and has approved exactly what you will pass on. Your fund's shares and board seat supply neither.

The two come apart because they belong to different things. Permission belongs to a person and goes wherever that person goes. Authority belongs to an office and stays behind when the person leaves it. Most confusion in portfolio conversations comes from treating the warmest founder in the room as both.

## A founder yes answers two questions, and only one is the company's

When you raise data licensing with a founder, you are really asking two things. The first is personal: may I mention your name, and these facts, to SourceX? Any founder can answer that for themselves. The second belongs to the company: does it want a first conversation about licensing its own records? Only the CEO can answer that one.

Corporate law explains why the second answer cannot come from just anyone with a founding story. Delaware's corporation statute, paraphrased, says every corporation has officers whose titles and duties are set by the bylaws or a board resolution, and each officer serves until a successor is chosen or they resign or are removed. Nothing in that structure makes "founder" an office. It records who started the company, not what the board has authorized anyone to do today.

The program settles the rest. SourceX's qualification page says the CEO authorizes a licensing discussion and signs for the company, and that a board seat gives a fund a voice in the boardroom, not the authority to open that discussion. The same page expects the decision maker to know about an introduction, and calls one made behind their back usually not a fit. So the next step you ask a founder for is never "can I submit you?" It is either "may I tell the CEO?" or, if they are the CEO, "does the company want this conversation, and what may I pass on?"

## The hats behind a founder's yes

Founders often hold several roles at once, and each role can grant something different. Ask which hat was on when you heard the yes.

| Hat | What a yes in this role can give you | What it cannot give you |
|---|---|---|
| CEO | The company's yes to a first conversation, and later a signature | A rights clearance; SourceX's review tests rights |
| Director | A view in the boardroom and a voice with the CEO | The company's decision |
| Shareholder | Their opinion as an owner | Any act by the company |
| Executive who runs a system, such as a CTO or COO | Permission to share their own details, and metadata answers once the CEO agrees | The company's yes |
| Former founder now chair, advisor or gone | A personal introduction to the CEO | Any authority over the discussion |
| Friend at dinner | Personal curiosity | Anything you can act on |

Your own hats matter too. An operating partner who sits on the board learned most of what they know about the company's systems from board packs, and SourceX's qualification page notes that what a fund learns through board materials or information rights usually stays confidential. That knowledge is a reason to ask the CEO, never material to pass on.

## The permission-versus-authority grid

Put every yes you hear on two axes. Authority runs across: is this the CEO's answer, and is it yes, a conditional yes or no? Permission runs up: may you pass on nothing, only the speaker's own details, or named facts about the company? The eight examples below are the kinds of yes a venture operating partner hears in a normal quarter.

Illustrative. Invented words and roles; no real founders or companies.

| # | What was said | Who said it | Permission | Authority | Your next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Fascinating. Maybe one day." | Co-founder, now board chair | None | None | Nothing to act on; keep it out of shared trackers |
| 2 | "Sure, give SourceX my email and say we keep twelve years of field tickets." | Co-founder and CTO | Own details and one company fact | None | Ask whether the CEO should hear it from the CTO or from you; submit nothing |
| 3 | "My co-founder will be fine with it. Go ahead." | COO, speaking for the CEO | Own details at most | None; authority claimed secondhand | Hear it from the CEO directly |
| 4 | "The board likes the idea." | Your own partner, after a board meeting | None | None; a board view is not the CEO's answer | Ask the CEO through whoever owns that relationship |
| 5 | "We want to explore it, but don't send them anything. I'll apply myself." | CEO | None | CEO yes | Send your partner link, pass on nothing, keep a dated note |
| 6 | "Yes, once our audit closes in March." | CEO | None yet | CEO yes, conditional | Diary the condition and ask again when it is met |
| 7 | "Yes. Introduce me, copy our COO, and say we have about 260 staff and eleven years of dispatch records." | CEO | Named people and facts | CEO yes | Submit with exactly that context and nothing more |
| 8 | "No, not for us." | CEO | Withdrawn | CEO no | Stop; record the decline with minimal detail |

**How to read it.** Only row 7 lets you submit an introduction carrying context. Row 5 is the off-diagonal case most partners mishandle: the company has decided, but the CEO has not given you permission to speak for it. SourceX's how-it-works page says the company applies itself at /apply and controls what it shares, so the link is the whole job. Row 2 is the mirror image: generous permission from someone who cannot open the company's door. Passing the CTO's email to SourceX would be allowed and still wrong, because the CEO has not heard the idea.

**Method note.** The grid applies two published rules, checked 2026-10-26: the CEO is the one who authorizes a licensing discussion, and an introduction the decision maker was never told about usually does not fit. It does not assess whether a company fits a current program, who owns its records or what any license would pay. SourceX assesses those in review.

## When the yes outlives the role

Because authority belongs to the office, a yes can go stale without anyone changing their mind. If the CEO who said yes in row 7 is replaced before the company applies, the yes no longer opens the company's door. The new CEO decides afresh. The former CEO's personal permission, to use their name or describe the conversation, still belongs to them.

The same applies when a founder-CEO moves to chair, when a company is acquired and the buyer's CEO now decides for it, or when a formal process puts someone else in control. The [receiver, assignee and trustee comparison](/compare/receiver-vs-assignee-vs-trustee-authority) covers who decides in each process.

Time works against a stale yes in a second way. Credit belongs to the earliest valid introduction inside the 90-day attribution window, and it is fixed only when the company submits a verified application. An introduction left waiting while authority changes hands can simply run out of window. Re-ask the person who holds the office today rather than relying on what the last holder said.

## Write the yes as two separate lines

A note of the conversation should keep the two answers apart, so nobody later reads permission as authority:

1. **Authority line.** "[Name], CEO since [date], said on [date] that [company] wants a first conversation with SourceX about licensing its own records."
2. **Permission line.** "I may pass on: [name, title, email of the people named], [headcount band], [record family, system and rough span of years]. Not to be passed on: [anything the CEO excluded]."

Send both lines back to the CEO and ask for a one-word confirmation. Hand off only what the permission line lists: names, a headcount band and record descriptions at metadata level, never files, samples, screenshots or logins. Attribution is decided from dated records, including written introduction evidence, so this note does double duty. The [written introduction versus referral link page](/proof/written-introduction-vs-referral-link-attribution) shows how dated evidence is read when two records disagree.

## Where the two-axis test misleads

- **Shared control.** The grid assumes one CEO can open the discussion. SourceX's qualification page says that in a 50/50 ownership or under a trustee or court, the CEO alone may not be enough. Find everyone who must agree before you treat row 7 as complete.
- **Authority is not rights.** A CEO's yes opens a conversation; it does not establish that the company may license what it holds. Client-owned material is usually not a fit, and rights are tested in SourceX's review.
- **Agreeable founders.** A founder may say yes to an investor to keep the relationship easy. The grid cannot detect that. Make declining as easy as agreeing, and treat row 8 as a complete answer.
- **Formality has a cost.** Sending a two-line note to a founder who said "sure" over coffee can feel like paperwork. SourceX has published no data on how founders react to it; if you track replies, note how many confirm and how many go quiet.
- **Programs change.** Criteria follow each program, so a yes given against last quarter's criteria deserves a fresh look before anyone submits.

For the conversation that produces the yes in the first place, start with [asking a business owner for permission to make an introduction](/guides/how-to-ask-a-business-owner-for-permission-to-make-an-introduction), and use [finding the right decision maker](/guides/how-to-find-the-right-decision-maker-for-a-data-partnership) when you are not yet sure who holds the office. The choice between a sponsor and a direct approach to the CEO has its own [comparison page](/compare/introduce-through-sponsor-or-directly-to-ceo), and the wider portfolio picture is in the [overview for venture platform teams](/for/venture-platform-teams).

## 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 CEO's yes lands in the submit cell, with a permission line the CEO has confirmed, the founder's part is done and yours begins: [open a partner account](/register), hold the company up to the [qualification criteria](/who-qualifies), and know the [terms](/terms) well enough to explain them before you pass anything on.

Sorting founder yeses is referral work; deciding whether SourceX itself is worth backing is a different exercise, and investor materials for it are available on request through the [SourceX investor overview](https://sourcex.si/investors).

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.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://refer.sourcex.si/who-qualifies
- https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/Title8.pdf
- https://refer.sourcex.si/how-it-works
- https://sourcex.si/investors