Deal Referral Source Tracking Template
Two documents and three sheets that rank referral sources by what advanced or got funded, not by how many deals arrived.
Free download · No account needed
Sourcing Assessment
[Fund] — Sourcing Assessment
Every source in the Referrer Register is ranked twice: once by how many deals it sent, once by how many advanced or were funded. The two rankings sit side by side, never blended into one score.
Ranked by volume
| Rank | Source | Deals sent |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | — | — |
| 2 | — | — |
| 3 | — | — |
| … | — | — |
Ranked by advance rate
| Rank | Source | Advance rate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | — | — |
| 2 | — | — |
| 3 | — | — |
| … | — | — |
A source whose position moves sharply between the two tables is usually the most useful finding the exercise produces.
Cobblestone Ventures logged 96 deals from six sources over a trailing twelve months. Ranked by how many each source sent, the order runs conference cold intros first, then an angel syndicate lead, an accelerator program, a co-investor, a law firm partner, and a single portfolio founder referral last. Ranked instead by how many of those deals advanced past screening or were actually funded, the order does not just reshuffle. It inverts: the portfolio founder referral finishes first, the co-investor second, and the two highest-volume sources drop to fifth and sixth.
The two highest-volume sources, conference intros and the angel syndicate lead, together supplied 55 of the year's 96 tracked deals, 57.3 per cent of all sourced volume, and produced five advances and zero of the year's four investments. The two lowest-volume sources, the law firm partner and the portfolio founder referral, together supplied 11 deals, 11.5 per cent of volume, and produced two of the four investments, half the year's fundings from a ninth of the flow. A pipeline register that only counts volume by source would credit the wrong two relationships entirely.
A survey of 885 venture capitalists finds little difference in deal-source mix between high and low-performing firms, and points instead to the quality of a firm's referral network as the likely differentiator. The Reciprocity Log tracks what goes back to each source in kind, never in cash, since a fee contingent on a deal closing risks the referrer needing to register as a broker-dealer under Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. A strong source with a thin log entry is the oversight a deal screen never catches.
What is in the pack
Sourcing Assessment
The narrative read of one period's Outcome by Source: which relationships the fund would thank by volume, which it should actually thank once advances and fundings are counted
Referrer Register
One row per deal with its source captured at intake, the only field every later ranking runs from, so a source cannot be reconstructed differently after the fact
Outcome by Source
Every source ranked twice from the same register, by deals sent and by advance rate, with the rank movement between the two computed rather than eyeballed
Reciprocity Log
What has actually gone back to each source, in kind, so a high-quality relationship getting nothing back becomes visible instead of a quiet one-way account
Relationship Cultivation Note
Where to spend relationship time next, built from the outcome ranking and the reciprocity gaps rather than from which contact emailed most recently
A source is ranked by what progressed
The standing rule: nothing in the space blends volume and advance rate into one score, because averaging them would hide the exact disagreement this pack exists to surface
How it works
- 1
Send pipeline history with sources attributed
A CRM export or pipeline notes covering as many months back as you can pull cleanly, with a source recorded on each deal. Twelve months shows a real pattern; a single quarter usually does not.
- 2
Build the Referrer Register
Source names get normalized first, since the same contact often appears under several spellings across a year of manual entry, then every deal is logged with its stage today.
- 3
Compute Outcome by Source both ways
Every source ranked by volume and by advance rate side by side, with rank movement flagged rather than blended into a single score that would hide the disagreement.
- 4
Update the reciprocity plan
The Reciprocity Log and Relationship Cultivation Note get built from what the ranking actually found, so relationship time follows outcomes rather than whoever emailed most recently.
Frequently asked questions
Why rank sources by advance rate instead of by how many deals they send?
Because volume rewards presence, not results. In the worked example, the two highest-volume sources supply 57.3 per cent of a year's tracked deal flow and produce zero of that year's investments. The two lowest-volume sources supply 11.5 per cent and produce half the year's fundings. A volume count cannot see that difference; a ranking by outcome sees it immediately.
What if a source has only sent one or two deals so far?
It still gets logged, and Outcome by Source states the sample size next to the rate so a fluke does not get mistaken for a pattern. A 100 per cent advance rate on one deal is not evidence of anything yet. The register is built to accumulate; a thin source this quarter can have a real rate a year from now.
Does this replace our CRM or pipeline tracker?
No. It reads the source field your pipeline register already has and scores it against outcomes; it does not date deals, flag dormant ones, or replace a stage field. Those are a separate discipline this pack assumes is already running, not one it duplicates.
Should we pay our best sources a referral fee?
The Reciprocity Log tracks what goes back in kind for exactly this reason: a fee contingent on a deal closing risks the referrer needing broker-dealer registration. Reciprocity here means access, introductions and allocation, never cash tied to an outcome. A referral source who is also a portfolio founder is the same kind of checkable instance a competitive round's Reference Offer later needs to name.
Does a source's ranking affect how a deal actually gets screened?
No, and the two stay separate on purpose. Screening judges one deal against fixed criteria the day it arrives. This pack judges a relationship's track record months or years later. A deal from a weak-ranked source still gets screened on its own facts, and if it advances, the first meeting that follows is prepared from the deck, not the source.
What does Edit with AI actually do?
It installs this pack as your own private space, then builds the Referrer Register from whatever pipeline export or CRM history you send. It normalizes source names, computes both rankings, and drafts the Sourcing Assessment from what it finds. You review and correct every step rather than approve a finished file.
What format are the downloaded files?
The Sourcing Assessment and Relationship Cultivation Note download as Word documents; the Referrer Register, Outcome by Source and Reciprocity Log download as CSV. Word opens in Word, Pages or Google Docs, and the CSVs open in Excel, Numbers or Sheets with the columns intact.
Find out which of your referral sources actually earns the credit it gets
Send your pipeline history with sources attributed. The first pass returns both rankings side by side and flags whichever source moves most between them.
Score my referral sources