CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Reconcile agreed terms across supplier contracts and amendments

For: Procurement lead or category manager preparing renewals or a supplier performance review

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceRuns todayDesigned for 4 to 150 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

The price, delivery date and penalty that apply to each supplier are spread over a master agreement, amendments and emails. An analyst rebuilds them in a spreadsheet for weeks, and nobody sees where the documents disagree.

The ask

“I attached our supplier contracts, their amendments and the email threads where terms were changed. For every supplier, tell me the delivery date, price and late-delivery penalty that apply now, show the source for each, and list where the documents contradict each other.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Master supply agreements
  • Amendments and side letters
  • Email threads confirming changed terms
  • Supplier list with the terms you care about

The unit of work

One worker task per one supplier file.

Why a swarm fits

A supplier's terms depend only on that supplier's own documents, so a worker needs one file, not the pile. The files are independent and the same few questions repeat across all of them.

Not for

A handful of suppliers with one clean contract each: one strong model, or a person, reads those as well and for less.

The decision tree

5 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Scope checkYes or no, with a probability

    Before work starts on a unit

    Does this document set or change a price, delivery date or late-delivery penalty for the named supplier, rather than merely mention the supplier?

    Sees only: One document's first page and headings, plus the supplier name

    Why: Keeps newsletters and unrelated correspondence out of paid worker tasks.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenAccept
    • No: below 0.30thenSkip this unit

  2. Before workers, before a task runs

    Small worker or strong modelYes or no, with a probability

    Before a task runs

    Is this supplier file a single agreement with dated, signed amendments and no terms agreed only by email?

    Sees only: The file's document list with types, dates and signature status

    Why: Tangled files go to a strong model; clean ones stay on cheap workers.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.40thenEscalate to a strong model

  3. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the quoted passage state this penalty, price or delivery date as agreed for this supplier, and not as a proposal, a draft or a request?

    Sees only: The extracted term, the quoted passage, the document type and its date

    Why: Stops a negotiating email from being reported as the agreed term.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  4. Reconciler, while merging

    Conflict checkA choice among options

    While reconciling

    Do these two passages give different values for the same term over the same period for this supplier?

    Sees only: Two quoted passages with document dates and the master agreement's precedence clause

    Why: Keeps real contradictions visible without flagging every amendment as a conflict.

    • Same term and period, different valuesthenMark unresolved
    • Later signed document replaces the earlierthenAccept
    • Different goods, sites or periodsthenAccept

  5. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Would reporting this term as settled change what we pay, claim or accept from this supplier while the documents still contradict each other?

    Sees only: The term, its sources and any open contradiction for this supplier

    Why: The procurement lead, not the swarm, decides which document prevails.

    Accountable: A procurement lead decides which document prevails where they contradict, and whether to raise it with the supplier.

    • Yes: 0.40 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.15 up to 0.40thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.15thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model turns the ask into term questions and the order-of-precedence rule to apply in each supplier file.

    Decisions here:1. Scope check

  2. Workers

    Small fast workers from an open-weight family, one per supplier file, extract each term with the quoted passage and document date.

    Designed for 4 to 150 agents, one worker task per one supplier file. Each worker receives only its own unit.

    Decisions here:2. Small worker or strong model

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family checks that each quoted passage actually supports the extracted term.

    Decisions here:3. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model applies precedence, merges the per-supplier results and keeps contradictions open rather than choosing.

    Decisions here:4. Conflict check

  5. Accountable person

    A procurement lead decides which document prevails where they contradict, and whether to raise it with the supplier.

    Decisions here:5. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Every term carries a verbatim quote, the document name and its date
  • Later amendments are checked against the precedence clause of the master agreement
  • Terms that appear only in email are marked as unsigned
  • Unsupported claims are retried once, then refused and listed

What comes back

  • Table of current terms per supplier, each with its source
  • Contradictions between documents, both sides quoted
  • Suppliers where a term could not be found
  • Exact spend and a replayable record of the run

What to measure

  • Share of flagged contradictions a reviewer confirms
  • Terms later found wrong in a hand-checked sample
  • Reviewer hours per supplier file
  • Cost per verified term against a single-model baseline

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Procurement and supply chain

Check tender bids against every mandatory and scored requirement

For: Sourcing manager or chair of a tender evaluation committee running a formal RFP

Each bid runs to hundreds of pages of technical, commercial, legal and sustainability annexes.

Pattern: Specialist panelNeeds live models5 decisionsDesigned for 8 to 300 agents