Does the sourcing agreement define what counts as a qualified deal, or am I just hoping we agree later

The line about "his buy box shifted and nothing in our agreement says what a qualified deal actually is" is the whole problem and you already diagnosed it, so the amendment is the right move.

I would add a reconfirmation clause, something like both parties agree to confirm the buy box in writing every 60 days, because someone who moved the target once will move it again. Did a lead gen retainer for a fix-and-flip operator in Baltimore without that language, he pivoted from SFR to small multifamily four months in, and I ate about $2,800 in sunk research time on leads that were now irrelevant.

What has his tone been when you flagged the mismatch verbally, apologetic or does he act like the new criteria were always the deal?

The assumption doing the most work in your current agreement is that "qualified deal" means something shared between you two. It does not. It means whatever the client says it means at the moment of review, which is exactly what you have experienced across nine submissions.

Two structural problems sit underneath the one you named. First, the agreement defines the payment trigger as close, but it does not define a submission trigger or a review obligation. That gap means the client has no contractual reason to engage seriously with what you send, and you have no mechanism to establish that a deal met criteria even if he passes. Second, the buy box you described on that call two weeks ago is actually workable language: Columbus metro, single family, ARV under $210k, 65 cents or below on acquisition, no foundation issues. The problem is it lives in your notes rather than in a signed document, so if he shifts again you are back to hoping for alignment.

When you go back this week, the amendment should do three things. It should define qualified deal with specificity, the criteria he gave you on that call are precise enough to write in. It should add a review obligation, meaning he has to give you a written response within a defined window after each submission, with a reason if he passes. And it should include a kill fee or a partial fee structure tied to submitted deals that met the written criteria at the time of submission, not at the time of his mood. That last piece is where you will learn the most about whether this client sees you as a sourcing partner or a free filter.

The risk you did not name: if he amends willingly but continues moving criteria post-amendment, the agreement has to say explicitly which version of the criteria governs each submission, otherwise you are in the same place with more paperwork.

A licensed contract attorney should review the amendment language before you sign anything, particularly around the fee trigger and any dispute mechanism.

What does your current agreement say, if anything, about how criteria changes get communicated and when they take effect?