Part of the 4+2 Pipeline Thrust Matrix (formerly the 4+2 Growth Matrix). The canonical source is the white paper; the name change is explained in why the name moved.
Search interest in sourced versus influenced pipeline is high because the two numbers answer different questions: and because teams that sum them carelessly lose sales trust. In the 4+2 Pipeline Thrust Matrix (the 4+2), both sit inside the North Star, with a decided rule for influence.
This page is only about how the 4+2 measures influenced pipeline. It does not invent category benchmarks. Industry blogs often quote wide ranges for “typical” influenced share; those figures are not part of white paper v1.0 and are not repeated here.
North Star reminder
Marketing's pipeline contribution = marketing-sourced pipeline value plus marketing-influenced pipeline value, reported separately and jointly with sales. Never present a single summed figure without also showing the two parts.
Sourced answers: what did marketing originate under the shared rule? Influenced answers: where did marketing touch a buying-group member in time to count?
The decided influenced rule
Influenced = a marketing touch on a buying-group member within a 90-day lookback window before:
- opportunity creation, or
- a stage advance.
Sales agrees the window. Revenue Operations audits. Soft activity outside the buying group, outside the window, or without an auditable touch does not count.
A buying group is the set of roles on one opportunity (economic buyer, user lead, procurement, finance, influencer, and so on), not a generic persona list.
Why a 90-day buying-group rule
Without a written rule, influenced pipeline becomes a dumping ground: every webinar registration near a deal gets credit, sales stops believing the dashboard, and Creation still gets cut because finance only trusts last-touch sourced numbers. The 4+2 chooses a specific, auditable definition so influence can sit in the revenue plan without theatre.
Ninety days is the decided default in v1.0. Sales may agree the same window company-wide; changing it is a joint decision, not a marketing-only edit. Revenue Operations owns the audit.
What counts as a qualifying touch (practical)
Agree the list with sales before you report. Typical auditable examples:
- Registered and attended event or webinar tied to the opportunity's account and role.
- Downloaded or requested high-intent assets logged against a buying-group contact.
- Meeting or briefing arranged by marketing with a mapped role on the open opportunity.
- Campaign membership with a clear content interaction (not a silent list add).
Usually too weak unless you explicitly agree otherwise: a single anonymous ad impression, a bot-inflated page view, an email open with no further action. Publish the qualifying-touch list next to the 90-day window.
Sourced, influenced, both, neither
Influenced totals often include opportunities that are also sourced. Do not add the two headlines and call the sum “marketing's pipeline”, that double-counts. Report four observational buckets when you can:
| Bucket | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Sourced only | Marketing originated; no separate influence claim needed for the headline |
| Influenced only | Sales/partner/other origin; marketing met the 90-day buying-group rule |
| Both | Originated by marketing and has later qualifying touches (show once in sourced; note influence as context if useful) |
| Neither | No marketing origin and no qualifying influence |
Label the report observational. A qualifying touch is associated with creation or stage advance under the rule; it does not by itself prove causality. Experiments and holdouts are separate work.
Where this sits in the 4+2
- Rule writing and audit to +1 Revenue Operations.
- In-deal touches that advance stages to often visible in 03 Pipeline Acceleration metrics (cycle length, stage conversion, roles engaged).
- Originating Capture work to 02 Demand Capture (sourced story).
- Out-of-market Creation to rarely “sourced” this quarter; its contribution often shows later as healthier Capture and as influenced touches when buyers enter market, which is why Creation must not be judged only on last-touch sourced.
Reporting cadence
- Monthly portfolio review with sales: sourced and influenced as separate lines against the contribution target.
- Quarterly: sample audit of influenced credits (Revenue Operations); refresh qualifying-touch list if needed.
- Board slide: two bars or two rows, never one unexplained total.
Failure modes
- Summing sourced + influenced without showing parts.
- Counting touches on contacts who are not buying-group members.
- Lookback starting from random CRM dates instead of create or stage advance.
- Changing the window after seeing which channels “win”.
- Using influenced to justify Capture media when Acceleration consensus is the real leak.
What to do next
- Write the 90-day rule and qualifying touches on one page; get sales to sign.
- Ask Revenue Operations for an audit sample of last month's influenced credits.
- Rebuild the contribution slide with separate sourced and influenced.
- Re-read Demand Capture and Pipeline Acceleration pages so homes stay clean.
Sources
Patel, P. (2026). The 4+2 Pipeline Thrust Matrix (North Star and influenced rule). https://prinkit.com/white-paper/4-plus-2-pipeline-thrust-matrix
General industry discussion of sourced vs influenced (for search context only; no benchmarks imported): e.g. Metadata, “Pipeline Attribution: When Sourced vs. Influenced Matters”, https://metadata.io/resources/blog/sourced-vs-influenced-pipeline