This page is part of the performance alert investigations hub. It answers one narrow question, who can say yes, as a tree you can walk through in a single conversation without seeing any records.
Start here: sponsor, approver, and people who only have logins
Before the tree, sort the people you meet into three groups. Confusing them is a common reason an introduction stalls.
- Sponsor. Knows the records and wants the conversation to happen. At an operator this is normally the asset operations director or head of performance engineering.
- Approver. Holds authority to open a licensing discussion about company records. The CEO, often with the COO, or the CFO where data policy sits with finance, preparing the case.
- Access holders. Performance analysts, control room staff and site technicians. They can describe coverage, alert volumes and how cases were closed. They cannot commit the company, and a platform administrator role does not change that.
The yes path, node by node
Ask each question of your sponsor. None of them requires an export, a screenshot or a login.
- Does this person run alert investigations day to day, or manage the people who do?
- Yes: they are the sponsor. Go to 2.
- No: ask who triages underperformance alerts and closes the cases, and start with that manager.
- Is this person also the CEO?
- No, in almost every operator: they can describe, not approve. Go to 3.
- Yes, in a small owner-run operator: they are also the approver. Go to 4.
- Who can authorize a licensing discussion?
- The CEO, often with the COO or CFO preparing the case. The CEO is the approver. Go to 4.
- Which records would be in scope, and whose are they?
- Investigation notes, procedures and root-cause write-ups held in the operator's own case log: usually the operator's. Go to 5.
- Telemetry, alarms and production data on the owner's monitoring platform: usually the owner's under the operations agreement. Owner consent becomes a question. Go to 5 with that branch marked.
- Not sure where the notes are written: mark ownership "to confirm".
- Has counsel read the operations agreements?
- Yes, and they allow the operator to license its own work product: go to 6.
- Not yet: no introduction of the approver until they have, or introduce with this listed as the first open item.
- What can only the rights review settle?
- Always the same list: owner consent where telemetry is involved, removal of site and owner names, buyer interest and any offer. Introduce the approver with these written down as open.
Telemetry or notes: the split that decides branch 4
Most of the tree is generic. Node 4 is where renewable operations differ from other sectors, because one investigation is built from records with two owners.
Expected output is measured against a basis the owner usually controls: photovoltaic monitoring systems are classed under IEC 61724-1, and the alert itself is raised by the owner's platform. The reasoning that closes the case is different. NERC's GADS wind reporting instructions show why: when equipment fails during a weather event, the failed equipment becomes the cause code and the weather is entered as the Contributing Operating Condition, a required field. The code records the verdict. Only the analyst's notes show how the team separated weather from a fault, and those notes are usually written by the operator.
Contracts decide the rest. The NREL best-practices guide for photovoltaic and storage O&M notes that O&M costs depend on the system's requirements and the nature of the O&M contract; in practice the contract also allocates records. That is why node 5 cannot be skipped.
| Record class | Typical holder | Typical owner | Effect on the tree |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alerts and alarm history | Owner's monitoring platform | Asset owner | Owner consent branch |
| Telemetry windows around each alert | Owner's monitoring platform | Asset owner | Owner consent branch |
| Analyst investigation notes | Operator's case log or tickets | Operator, subject to contract | Operator approver branch |
| Work orders and technician findings | Operator's maintenance system | Operator, subject to contract | Operator approver branch |
| Confirmed cause codes | Platform and reliability reporting | Usually shared | Counsel reads the agreement |
| Procedures and checklists | Operator's document system | Operator | Operator approver branch |
Who knows, who signs: roles at an operator
| Role | What they can tell you | Can they authorize a licensing discussion? |
|---|---|---|
| Performance analyst | How alerts are triaged and closed | No: access only |
| Site or regional manager | Which sites have complete histories | No |
| Asset operations director | Coverage, gaps, subcontracted periods | Sponsor, not the approver |
| Contracts manager | Which agreements cover which sites | No, but flags restrictions |
| General counsel or outside counsel | Record allocation in each agreement | Advises; may set conditions |
| CEO | Overall authority over company records | Yes; authorizes and signs |
Three operators, three paths (Illustrative)
Fictional examples, written for this page.
| Operator | Path through the tree | Where it ends |
|---|---|---|
| A 230-person wind and solar O&M company with its own case log | Director sponsors; COO holds data policy; notes in the operator's system; counsel confirms work product stays with the operator | Introduce the CEO with the COO and counsel; owner consent listed as open for any telemetry |
| A 140-person solar operator writing notes inside each owner's platform | Notes sit on systems the owners control; nine agreements | Ownership "to confirm"; no approver introduction until counsel reads the agreements |
| A 400-person operator being sold to an infrastructure fund | Records split between the operating company and a holding entity | Deal counsel names the entity that holds title before anyone is introduced |
The second row is the one to watch for. When analysts write their reasoning into the owner's platform rather than the operator's own tools, the operator may hold nothing it can license, however good the history is. The solar O&M acquisition page describes the same owner and operator split from the transaction side.
Left open until SourceX's rights review
For SourceX, an introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a 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.
Whatever the tree says, these stay unknown until review: whether any record can be licensed, which owner consents are needed, what must be removed, what a buyer would want and whether any offer follows. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions; attribution goes to the first valid introduction within the 90-day window, credited when the company submits a verified application.
To know which identifiers would need to join, read the system map for alert investigations; to write the answers down, use the referral brief template. Why data rights matter explains why the review comes first, and root cause analysis records and AI agents need work data explain why investigation reasoning is worth the effort.
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.
When the tree ends at a named CEO and counsel knows which agreements to read, register as a partner, check the operator against who qualifies and read the program terms before introducing the approver.