I believe that a payment made in the event of a "change in control" (not a 409A-compliant definition of change on control but a strict definition) can still constitute a "substantial risk of forfeiture" for purposes of using the short-term deferral exception. However, I can't find this anywhere in black and white. I have been charged with finding some authority that says this. Can anyone help out? Thanks in advance.

I don't think you will find it in the regs themselves, but the definition of SRF is such that the non-occurrence of a CIC (coupled with continued employment) can easily qualify as a SRF, assuming that no CIC is about to occur when the plan is set up. If continued employment is not required, and if there is no deadline for when a CIC triggering benefits may occur, then I think you have at least an academic issue as to whether there really is a SRF if the benefits vest no matter when a SRF occurs (e.g., 100 years from now).