Quick answer
A published minimum can establish a specific mismatch. Case-by-case programs review the individual opportunity. Compare the criteria and program scope when building your shortlist.
Four kinds of statements need four actions
A requirement, preference, example and interface setting are not interchangeable. A provider may prefer a market without excluding all others. A calculator can start at a certain employee count without saying that smaller applicants cannot inquire.
| Statement type | What it establishes | Question to resolve | Applicant action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published minimum | An explicit criterion for that scope | Acceptance when all criteria match | Compare the exact measure |
| Preference | A stated priority | Universal exclusion elsewhere | Describe the case and clarify |
| Example | One illustrated input or collection | A complete eligibility rule | Use it as vocabulary |
| Unresearched | Evidence gap in this comparison | The provider’s criterion | Keep an open question |
Use real criteria on their own terms
Handshake’s license page states 20+ full-time employees and three years in operation. Avelence’s methodology says its calculator limits do not decide who may submit a profile. These statements establish different things and cannot be reduced to one employee threshold.
Work the same fictional company through both
A fictional company has 18 full-time employees, four contractors, eight years of operation and two years of retained chat. The full-time employee answer is 18; adding contractors would change the definition rather than solve the mismatch. The operating-age answer is eight, while the chat-history answer remains two.
Against an explicit full-time threshold, the packet records the mismatch and the source. Against an entry whose calculator does not decide profile eligibility, the packet records an unresolved opportunity rather than inventing a pass. These are useful, reproducible shortlist decisions.
Keep the mismatch narrow
A mismatch with one criterion belongs to that program and route. It is not evidence that the whole business-data market rejects the company. Equally, a provider with no researched numeric criterion has not promised to accept it.
If a source uses a different definition of employees, capture that definition. If the application and program page conflict, keep both statements with their scopes and ask which applies. Choosing whichever statement gives a more attractive result would make the shortlist less reliable.
Write a transparent selection reason
Use a sentence containing the company answer, criterion and next action. For example: current full-time count is below this program’s published threshold; retain only if the provider clarifies a relevant exception. Another route might read: no numeric rule established in the researched source; ask how the operating record would be assessed.
The useful result is not a longer list. It is a list where exclusions, unresolved entries and matching published criteria can be explained from the same underlying profile. Save the criterion source and observation date with the reason so later changes are easy to evaluate.
Questions about this comparison
Does matching every published criterion mean approval?
No. It means the company answers align with those published criteria. The collection and opportunity still need evaluation.
Does case by case mean smaller companies are eligible?
It leaves the case unresolved. Ask about the particular company rather than interpreting the phrase as acceptance.
Sources
- Data Partnerships | Handshake AI (license / interest form page)Handshake · Checked 2026-10-10
- How we match | AvelenceAvelence · Checked 2026-10-04