# Written intro vs referral link attribution | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/proof/written-introduction-vs-referral-link-attribution
Last updated: 2026-10-26

When a written introduction and a link click disagree, the evidence that matters is dated proof of who first validly introduced the company's authorized contact within the 90-day window. The terms credit an introduction, not a click, and credit is recorded when the company submits a verified application. A click shows a page was opened; a dated email to an authorized contact who opted in shows an introduction. Conflicting claims go to duplicate review, which weighs that evidence under the terms.

This timeline is part of [how the SourceX referral link works](/proof/what-is-a-referral-link). Here the subject is the evidence itself: what each record proves, in date order, and how to keep a file that survives review.

## What the terms count, and what a click counts

The [program terms](/terms) set the rule: the first valid introduction within the 90-day attribution window gets credit, credited when the company submits a verified application; one partner per company; duplicates are reviewed. The [rewards page](/rewards) summarizes the same rule.

A referral link does two useful things. It tags the application form with a partner, and it logs that someone opened a page. Neither is the rule. The link is a tracking tool that usually agrees with the rule, which is why using it in a one-to-one introduction is recommended. Disagreement happens when the two point to different people, for example when an owner was introduced in writing by one partner and later applied through another partner's public post. For the distinction between marketing touches and contractual credit, see [separating marketing attribution from contractual referral credit](/guides/how-to-separate-marketing-attribution-from-contractual-referral-credit).

## A dated evidence timeline for one introduction (Illustrative)

Fictional, invented for this page: one partner, a 240-person regional freight broker, and a second partner whose public post the owner later clicks. Days count from the agreement signature.

| Day | Event | Record it leaves | What it proves |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Partner signs the Channel Partner Agreement | Signed agreement with date | The partner was eligible to submit from this day |
| 6 | Call with the freight broker's CEO, who agrees to be introduced | Partner's call note | Opt-in, but only the partner's own account |
| 6 | Email to the CEO and SourceX, introducing them, with the partner's link | Sent email with Date header, recipients and text | A written introduction to an authorized contact, and when |
| 7 | Partner submits the introduction in the portal | Portal timestamp | That the partner claimed the company on that date |
| 19 | CEO clicks a second partner's link in a newsletter and leaves | Click log on the second link | That someone opened that page |
| 38 | Company applies through the second partner's link | Application tagged to the second link | Which form the application came through |
| 41 | SourceX verifies the application | Verified application record | The event at which credit is recorded |
| 41 onward | Two claims for one company identified | Duplicate review | A decision under the terms, not before |

Read the right-hand column. The application is tagged to the second partner, but the earliest dated, written introduction to an authorized contact came on day 6 from the first. That is the evidence duplicate review will weigh. This page does not predict the outcome, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can set different terms. The [attribution window answer](/questions/what-is-an-attribution-window) explains the 90 days.

Why the email carries weight: under the Internet Message Format standard, every email must carry an origination date, the Date header, which records when the sender marked the message complete and ready to send. Together with the recipients and the text, it fixes who introduced whom and when, without anyone's memory.

## Three disagreement patterns and the stronger evidence

| Pattern | Evidence on one side | Evidence on the other | Usually the stronger evidence of a valid introduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written intro first, link click later | Dated email to the CEO with opt-in | Later click and tagged application | The dated written introduction |
| Link click first, written intro later | Earlier click on a public post, no contact | Later dated email to the CEO with opt-in | The written introduction, since a click introduces no one |
| Two written intros | Email to a junior manager on day 3 | Email to the CEO with opt-in on day 10 | Weighed in review; authority and opt-in matter as well as date |

"Usually" is deliberate. Duplicate review applies the terms to the facts of each case. What the table shows is which records describe an introduction at all, and which only describe a visit. [First valid referrer vs last touch](/compare/referral-attribution-first-vs-last) compares the two rule types, and [how attribution works across the website and partner portal](/guides/how-referral-attribution-works-across-a-website-and-a-partner-portal) shows where each record is created.

## Keeping an evidence file that survives duplicate review

Keep five items per company, and nothing more:

1. **The signed partner agreement**, with its date. It must come before any submission.
2. **The sent introduction email**, unedited, with headers. Address the authorized contact, record their opt-in in the text ("as we discussed, introducing you"), and include your own link so the tracking and the written record point the same way.
3. **The portal submission**, made the same day or the next.
4. **A one-line note of the opt-in conversation**: date, who, what they agreed to.
5. **Nothing from the client.** No client records, attachments or exports. If SourceX asks for evidence during review, send the introduction itself: date, sender, recipients and text.

The pattern is described step by step in [using a referral link in a one-to-one business conversation](/guides/how-to-use-a-referral-link-in-a-one-to-one-business-conversation).

## What still has to happen before any reward

Credit attaches one partner to one company. It does not make a reward payable; [creating a link does not make an introduction eligible](/questions/does-creating-a-referral-link-make-an-introduction-eligible-for-a-reward) on its own either. The company must qualify: 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. 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 90% of the data is in English. A reward becomes payable after SourceX has paid the referred company under its signed agreement and the payout conditions in the program terms are met, including finance approval and your tax and payment details.

## 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.

Sign the partner agreement before you introduce anyone, so the dated written introduction can be submitted the same day: [register as a partner](/register), confirm the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the attribution section of the [program terms](/terms).

## What happens when the introduction happens by email before the link is used?

Usually nothing goes wrong, because the email is the introduction and the link is only a tag. The terms decide attribution from dated records, including written introduction evidence, and say an earlier link click alone does not decide credit; a later click decides it no more. Trouble comes from elsewhere: the company was already known to SourceX, the email went out before you signed the partner agreement, the application arrived after day 90, or another partner holds a claim. Each has its own term, and each deserves only as much escalation as it needs.

The timeline above sets your email against another partner's click. This section starts one step earlier, with your own email and your own link, and adds what that comparison leaves out: the order to rebuild your records in, an escalation ladder, and seven cases matched to the term that governs each.

## Rebuild the timeline from five timestamps

Put five timestamps in order before you decide anything. Every one is yours or the company's; none requires another partner's records.

| # | Timestamp | Where it lives | What it settles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Your Channel Partner Agreement signature | The signed agreement | Whether you could submit introductions on the date of your email |
| 2 | Your introduction email | The original in your sent folder, headers intact | When the written introduction happened, and to whom |
| 3 | Your portal submission | Your dashboard | When you claimed the company with SourceX |
| 4 | The first visit through your link, if any | Your dashboard | That the link was opened, and nothing more |
| 5 | The company's application | Your dashboard, or the CEO | When attribution locked: SourceX's home page says it locks at submission |

Keep timestamp 2 as the original message. RFC 5322 requires every message to carry an origination date and says every message should carry a Message-ID field holding a unique identifier. A screenshot or a pasted quote carries neither, and forwarding the message to yourself creates a new message dated the day you forwarded it.

Three orderings need attention. If 2 comes before 1, go to case E below. If more than a day separates 2 and 3, that gap is the weakest point in your file, and the habit that closes it is in [using a referral link in a one-to-one conversation](/guides/how-to-use-a-referral-link-in-a-one-to-one-business-conversation). If 5 lands more than 90 days after 2, go to case G and read the dated calendar in [what an attribution window is](/questions/what-is-an-attribution-window).

## The four-level escalation ladder

Climb only as far as the case requires. Each level costs more of SourceX's attention and of the company's patience than the one below it.

| Level | What you do | Use it when |
|---|---|---|
| 0. Record and wait | File the five timestamps and contact no one | The terms already answer the case, for you or against you |
| 1. Complete your own record | Check the dashboard; if the introduction is missing, submit it with the email's date | Your records are incomplete, or the application arrived without your tag |
| 2. Ask SourceX for a decision | Contact SourceX as section 7 of the terms describes, with the referral details and supporting evidence | Two dated claims conflict, or the dates raise a question no published rule answers |
| 3. Turn to the signed agreement | Read the Channel Partner Agreement on contact protection and confidentiality, and take your own advice if needed | You believe your introduced contact was taken around you |

Level 3 is not a louder version of level 2. Section 8 of the terms divides the documents: the signed Channel Partner Agreement governs confidentiality, contact protection and its remedies, while the program terms govern attribution and rewards. A credit question never belongs at level 3, and a bypass complaint never belongs in an attribution dispute.

## Seven email-first cases and how far each one escalates (Illustrative)

Fictional, invented for this page. A partner who signed the Channel Partner Agreement on Tuesday 1 September 2026 (case E differs) emails the CEO of a 210-person accounting outsourcing firm on Monday 2 November 2026, after the CEO agreed by phone, with the partner's link inside the email and the introduction submitted in the portal the same day.

| Case | What happened after the email | What the link shows | Governing wording | Level | What to have ready |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Link used as sent | The CEO applied through the link in the email on Thu 19 Nov | Your tag | Section 2: first valid introduction, credited when the company submits a verified application | 0 | Nothing beyond your file |
| B. Address typed | The CFO applied on Mon 30 Nov after typing the site address | No tag | Section 2: decided from dated records; a click alone does not decide credit | 1 | The original email and your portal timestamp |
| C. SourceX's follow-up used | You copied SourceX; SourceX wrote to the CEO on Wed 4 Nov and the company applied from that thread on Fri 20 Nov | No tag | Section 2: SourceX may communicate with the company directly without affecting valid attribution | 1 | The original email showing SourceX copied |
| D. Another partner's link | The company applied on Wed 25 Nov through another partner's newsletter link | Their tag | Section 2: one partner per company, the first valid introduction | 2 | The original email, your portal timestamp and a one-line note of the CEO's agreement |
| E. Email before signature | You emailed on Wed 28 Oct, then signed and submitted on Fri 30 Oct; the company applied through your link on Wed 18 Nov | Your tag | Section 1: sign before submitting introductions; the terms do not say whether an email sent before signing can be the valid introduction | 2 | Both dates, disclosed together |
| F. Known before you wrote | The firm's COO had emailed SourceX in June 2026 | Beside the point | Section 3: earlier email correspondence is a relationship, however it began | 0 | Nothing, unless the June contact may concern a different company; then level 2 |
| G. Applied after day 90 | The company applied through your link on Mon 15 Feb 2027, day 105 | Your tag | Section 2: the 90-day window does not extend because contact protection continues | 0 for credit; 3 only for a bypass | Your file, and the signed agreement if level 3 applies |

Case D is the only one in which the email-first order does decisive work, and the dated timeline above shows how such a claim is weighed. Cases B and C look alarming in a dashboard and are not: the missing tag is a gap in tracking, not in evidence, and section 2 names written introduction evidence among the dated records that decide.

Case E is tempting to leave out of the story. Leave nothing out. The terms require the signed agreement before you submit introductions and say nothing about an email sent days earlier, so SourceX decides from the dated records, and it can only decide on the full set if you give it both dates.

Cases F and G show the limit of the email's date. In F, section 3 counts the company's June email to SourceX however it began, so being first among partners does not make the company new. In G, the window has closed whatever the link shows. Escalating either one spends goodwill and changes no outcome.

## The four-sentence note for level 2

Write it so SourceX can decide from the note and its one attachment:

> On [date], I introduced [CEO name and role] of [legal name, domain] by email; the original message is attached with its headers. I submitted the introduction in the partner portal on [date]. The company's application of [date] [carries no partner tag / carries another partner's tag]. Under section 2 of the program terms, Version 2026-10-22.2, I am asking SourceX to decide whether my introduction of [date] is the first valid introduction of a new company.

Leave out client records, any emails between the company and SourceX (the company can send those itself), screenshots in place of the original, and anything about the other partner. Section 7 says partners never receive access to other partners' records, so a note that depends on them will stall. If you are writing the introduction itself rather than a dispute, the [company introduction email template](/resources/company-introduction-email-template) puts the link inside the email from the start, and what the link records afterwards is traced in [the referral link journey](/proof/what-is-a-referral-link).

Send the email with the link inside it and submit the same introduction in the portal that day, and most of this ladder never comes into use: [register as a partner](/register), check the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the [program terms](/terms). More partner playbooks are in [guides](/guides).

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://refer.sourcex.si/rewards
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.html
- https://refer.sourcex.si/