Quick answer
Missing one published threshold changes that route’s preparation, not the facts about your company. Document the exact mismatch, check the program scope, and use unresolved alternatives as questions to investigate rather than assumed exceptions.
Write the mismatch in one sentence
Record the company answer and the provider’s measure side by side. Include the source, observation date and program. This prevents a vague conclusion such as too small from spreading across the entire shortlist.
A fictional company with 18 full-time employees should not report 22 by adding four contractors when the criterion explicitly names full-time employees. If the measure is ambiguous, the useful next step is to ask how it is defined.
Check that you are reading the right route
A direct-applicant page, referral program and calculator may serve different purposes. Verify which one contains the statement before applying it. The matrix retains the criterion type so a minimum is not confused with a preference.
Handshake’s license page gives a company-size and operating-age criterion. micro1’s program and linked application express size differently. These examples show why scope and source belong in the packet, rather than only a numeric filter.
Choose among three practical actions
A clear mismatch can justify setting the route aside, asking a narrow clarification or returning later if the underlying company changes. The appropriate choice depends on whether the unresolved point could realistically affect the next decision. Do not turn every mismatch into a long exception argument.
| State | Action | Useful output |
|---|---|---|
| Criterion clear and company answer below it | Set aside or ask one explicit scope question | Recorded mismatch |
| Measure unclear | Ask how the count or period is defined | Definition to apply consistently |
| Source scope conflicts | Keep both statements visible | Question about applicable route |
Find another route
Look for a route that assesses collections individually and ask how its criteria apply to your business.
Use the same company facts and attach the reason the alternative is worth investigating. If the reason is only that its page has fewer details, the next action should be a clarification, not extensive preparation.
Keep a return condition
A deferred route should have a reason to revisit it: a new source, a clarified definition, a changed company fact or a relevant opportunity. Without a return condition, the shortlist becomes a collection of repeated inquiries.
Record what evidence would change your decision. This makes the work reusable and avoids sending contradictory profiles in the hope that a different answer will produce a different outcome. The goal is a sound next route, not passing every visible filter.
Questions about this comparison
Should I leave a mismatched provider on the shortlist?
You can retain it as a documented mismatch if a specific scope question is worth asking. Keep that state distinct from matching criteria.
What if my team count is approximate?
Record the approximation and definition, then verify it if the threshold could change your next action.
Sources
- Data Partnerships | Handshake AI (license / interest form page)Handshake · Checked 2026-10-10
- Monetize your company's operational data (micro1)micro1 · Checked 2026-10-12
- Enterprise Data Partnership | micro1 (application page)micro1 · Checked 2026-10-10