# Consolidator brand data referrals: separation map | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/when-a-consolidator-wants-to-refer-several-acquired-brands
Last updated: 2026-11-05

Treat the brands as one company with several record sets. The program counts a parent and every subsidiary under it as one referred company, so the USD 50,000 floor applies once, to the group's first qualifying transaction, later qualifying transactions pay 15% with no cap, and the platform's CEO decides for every brand the group owns. What differs by brand is the records: which entity holds them, whether pre-closing history came across in the deal, what contracts limit, and whether any were licensed for AI training before. Map each brand to its entity and datasets first, then make one introduction through the CEO.

This is for the operations lead at a fund whose portfolio includes a consolidator, and for the consolidator's own value creation team. The request usually arrives as "we bought six companies; can we refer all six?" The honest answer turns on three lists that people tend to blur: brands, legal entities and datasets.

## Brands, entities and datasets are three different lists

A brand is what a customer sees on the van or the invoice. The Small Business Administration's guide to naming a business describes a DBA as a way to trade under an identity different from the owner's own name or the formal entity name. So the brand a consolidator acquired may now be a trade name used by a subsidiary, by the parent itself after a merger, or by franchisees who own their own businesses.

An entity is the legal company that employs the staff and holds the records. Datasets are what can actually be licensed: a particular system's history for a particular span of years. SourceX's guide to [combining job records across acquired brands](https://sourcex.si/insights/home-services-roll-ups-combining-job-records-across-acquired-brands) recommends tagging every record with its brand, owning entity, source system and original ID, because rights travel with each brand's records. The same guide says each entity's records clear their own rights review, and a combined package is assembled only from brands that cleared.

A consolidator wanting to "refer six brands" is really asking three questions at once. Which entities does the group control today? Which datasets sit inside them? And who says yes for the group?

## What the program settles for a group, and what it leaves to review

| Question | Answer | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Who authorizes for the brands? | The platform CEO, for every company the group owns; after an acquisition, the acquirer's CEO decides | Who-qualifies page; owner decision |
| How many first-transaction floors? | One. A parent and its subsidiaries are one referred company, so the USD 50,000 floor applies to the group's first qualifying transaction only; later qualifying transactions pay 15% with no cap, and a new agreement does not restart the floor | Owner decision; terms section 4 |
| Is the reward taken out of the brands' payouts? | No. SourceX pays it separately | Terms section 4 |
| Can a brand already known to SourceX be credited? | Section 3 treats a company with an earlier application, relationship or valid introduction as a duplicate | Terms section 3 |
| Can records already licensed for AI training be offered? | No; suppliers confirm their data has not been licensed for that purpose before | SourceX's how-it-works page |
| Does a brand's pre-acquisition contact with SourceX, or another partner's earlier introduction of a sister brand, change credit for the group? | Not settled in the terms. SourceX resolves it case by case in duplicate review, from dated records | Open question |

The last row is the one to raise before anyone submits. If a brand's founder emailed SourceX two years before the sale, or a different partner introduced one sister company last spring, put those dates on the map and let SourceX weigh them.

## The brand-entity dataset separation map

One row per brand, completed with the consolidator's CFO or general counsel from the group's own deal records, and dated. The seven columns below are the minimum.

Illustrative. A generic six-brand home services group; every detail is invented.

| Brand | Entity holding the records today | How it joined | Where pre-closing history sits | Known limits | Earlier SourceX contact | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Founding brand | The parent | Founded 2009; the platform grew from it | In the parent's field service system since 2014 | None known | None known | Go forward |
| 2. Regional plumber | A surviving subsidiary | Stock purchase, 2020 | Old system kept read-only after a 2022 migration | Customer notices to be read in review | Its brand manager emailed SourceX in early 2026 | Go forward, legacy system named, email disclosed |
| 3. Electrical contractor | The parent, after a 2021 asset purchase | Asset purchase, 2021 | Stayed with the seller's company, still owned by its founder | Only post-closing records are the group's | None known | Post-close records only |
| 4. Franchise system | The franchisor subsidiary | Stock purchase, 2023 | Franchisor records moved; each franchisee keeps its own job history | Franchise agreements | None known | Franchisor records only |
| 5. HVAC brand | A subsidiary | Stock purchase, 2024 | Moved into the platform's system | Its former owner licensed its job history to an AI developer in 2023 | None known | Leave those records out |
| 6. Garage door installer | Still its seller's company | Letter of intent, not closed | With the seller | Not the group's yet | Not asked | Not part of this introduction |

Read the status column as the outcome of the other six. Brand 2 shows why the contact column exists: an email from inside the group is exactly the kind of dated record SourceX weighs in duplicate review, so it goes on the map rather than being left out. Brand 3 shows why a brand is not an entity: the name came across in an asset deal, the old records did not, and they belong to a company outside the group whose own CEO decides about them. Brand 4 shows a brand whose most detailed records were never the consolidator's. Brand 5 is a stop for the records already licensed; whether anything newer from that brand could be offered is for SourceX to assess. Brand 6 is not the platform's to bring until the deal closes, and if it closes later it joins the group as a further transaction of the same referred company, with no fresh floor. The [asset sale versus stock sale comparison](/compare/asset-sale-vs-stock-sale-data-ownership) explains why the deal type moves the records.

## A transition timeline that keeps custody, control and introduction apart

Every acquisition changes up to three things, and they rarely change on the same day. Custody is where the records physically sit and who administers them. Control is who decides for the entity. Introduction is who has said what to whom, including SourceX. Logging them separately stops one event from being mistaken for another.

| Date (Illustrative) | Event | Custody | Control | Introduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Brand 2 bought in a stock deal | Unchanged: its own system | Moves to the platform CEO | None |
| 2021 | Brand 3 bought in an asset deal | Pre-closing records stay with the seller's company | The platform CEO decides for the brand from closing; the seller's CEO still decides for the old records | None |
| 2022 | Brand 2 migrated to the platform's system | Old system becomes read-only | Unchanged | None |
| 2024 | Brand 5 bought | Records moved in; diligence files show a 2023 AI license | Moves to the platform CEO | None |
| 2026, February | Brand 2's manager emails SourceX | Unchanged | Unchanged | A dated contact with SourceX, recorded on the map |
| 2026, September | Fund operations lead raises licensing with the platform CEO | Unchanged | Unchanged | First conversation, dated |
| 2026, October | CEO wants the conversation | Unchanged | Unchanged | One introduction, covering brands 1 to 4 |

Some transitions also bring duties to keep records, such as retention terms in a purchase agreement or a dispute that began before closing. Whether any apply, and to which brand's records, is a question for the group's counsel before a licensing project touches those systems. A dated migration or a planned shutdown of a read-only system is the only kind of urgency worth acting on.

## One floor across several brands (Illustrative)

Illustrative. Invented payouts, not a forecast and not a quote. The reward on the group's first qualifying transaction is the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; each further qualifying transaction first agreed within 12 months of that first Closing pays 15% of its Actual Supplier Payout, with no floor and no cap.

| Step | Actual Supplier Payout for this transaction | Reward on this transaction | Reward to date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand 1 records licensed: the group's first qualifying transaction | USD 250,000 | USD 62,500 (USD 50,000 plus 5%, above 15%) | USD 62,500 |
| Brand 2 records licensed within the Repeat Window | USD 250,000 | USD 37,500 (15%) | USD 100,000 |
| Brand 4 franchisor records licensed within the Repeat Window, at the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction | USD 100,000 | USD 15,000 (15%) | USD 115,000 |
| A later cut of USD 100,000 to brand 2's amount, leaving it above the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction | USD 150,000 | USD 22,500 (15% of the reduced amount) | USD 100,000 |
| Brand 4's amount reversed in full | USD 0 | USD 0 | USD 85,000 |

The first license carried the USD 50,000 element, which applies once per referred company; the second and third, agreed inside the Repeat Window, paid 15% with no floor and no cap. When brand 2's amount was later cut, its reward was recalculated proportionately on the reduced amount, and brand 4's reversal took its reward to nothing, with the USD 30,000 already paid above the adjusted total adjusted. A later brand, renewal or amendment is a further transaction of the same company, never a new floor, and the brands' own payouts are never reduced to fund the reward. For each qualifying transaction, section 5 of the terms sets the payment deadline at 60 calendar days after the later of the Acquisition Partner's final written acceptance of the complete, validated dataset and its completed handoff; a condition still open on that date is paid promptly once met, without a fresh 60 days.

## One introduction, a staged one, or stop

- **One introduction now.** The CEO wants the conversation, at least one brand's records are clearly the group's own, and the map is dated. Introduce the group once, through the CEO, with the map's status column as the description. Agree in writing beforehand who submits: the fund's operations lead or the consolidator's operating partner, whoever has signed the Channel Partner Agreement.
- **A staged introduction.** A brand's history is mid-migration, or a deal is about to close. Introduce what is ready and record when the rest will be.
- **Stop.** The CEO is not interested, the brands with real history are the ones whose records belong to sellers or franchisees, or the useful records were already licensed for AI training.

The group-level mechanics are covered elsewhere: who approves for a subsidiary in [the subsidiary approval path](/guides/why-a-subsidiary-introduction-needs-a-different-approval-path), the once-per-company floor in [the subsidiary reward guide](/guides/subsidiary-referral-reward-cap), and records that moved through earlier acquisitions in [acquisition-led growth and the referral entity](/guides/when-acquisition-led-growth-changes-the-referral-entity).

## Where the separation map can fail

- **Deal documents beat memory.** People remember a brand as "ours" when the asset purchase left its history with the seller. Fill the map from the purchase agreements, not from the integration team's recollection.
- **Demand is a review question.** A clean map says nothing about whether a current SourceX program wants home services records, or which brand's. SourceX checks relevance to its current needs in review, and programs change.
- **Integration losses.** SourceX's roll-up guide notes that some brands lose legacy history in integration, and those gaps must be disclosed. A brand whose old system was switched off may have little left to describe.
- **Uneven depth.** The same guide warns that blending one brand's thin records with another's rich ones without labels dilutes the set. More brands do not automatically mean a stronger introduction.
- **Credit across the group.** How earlier contacts by individual brands or other partners affect credit is decided in duplicate review, not by the map.
- **Ownership is not eligibility.** A fund's stake in the consolidator says nothing about whether any brand's records qualify.

**Method note.** The map records seven facts per brand: the entity holding its records, how and when it joined, where pre-closing history sits, known limits including any earlier AI training license, earlier SourceX contact, and the resulting status. It applies SourceX's terms (Version 2026-11-04, checked 2026-11-05), the who-qualifies page and SourceX's roll-up guide, both checked 2026-10-27, together with the settled rules that the CEO authorizes and that a parent and its subsidiaries are one referred company with one first-transaction floor. It does not measure demand, record quality or likely payout. Acceptance rates for multi-brand groups are not yet published; a fund can count, for itself, the brands mapped, the brands marked go forward and the CEOs who agreed.

## 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 separation map shows at least one brand whose records are plainly the group's own and the platform CEO wants to talk, [register as a partner](/register), check the group against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) on duplicates and the first-transaction floor before a single brand is mentioned to SourceX. Operating partners will find the wider workflow on the [private equity operating partner page](/for/private-equity-operating-partners).

Introducing a consolidator's brands is a referral decision; deciding whether SourceX itself merits investment is a separate one, and readers weighing that can request materials 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://sourcex.si/insights/home-services-roll-ups-combining-job-records-across-acquired-brands
- https://sourcex.si/how-it-works
- https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch-your-business/choose-your-business-name
- https://sourcex.si/investors