Set out what a vendor committed to deliver and what the record shows they delivered, attach the evidence to each line, and leave the breach and the claim to the named vendor manager.
A vendor commits to a service level in a schedule to a contract, and that commitment is lifted out and held as a term.
02
A target is missed, and what the operational systems recorded at the time is gathered underneath it.
Reason
03
An outage runs, and its hours come from the monitoring record rather than from the moment a ticket was raised.
04
A claim window opens with the period it belongs to, and the days left to claim under the contract are counted.
05
A scope change is asked for, and the line it should be priced against is named before the work is done.
Decide
06
A commitment cannot be found in the contract at all, and the absence is written down as the finding.
07
A vendor reports its own performance, and that report is set beside the operational record rather than taken for it.
Out
08
A service review comes round, and each gap arrives with its evidence, its dates and the term it is measured against.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Assembly, comparison and evidence belong to the agent. Calling a breach, claiming a credit and accepting a remedy belong to a named vendor manager.
Example workflow
One service level, contract to review
AgentHuman
1Commitment receivedContract schedules, statements of work, service catalogues or purchase orders
2Performance assembledTickets, monitoring records, timesheets, delivery notes and the dates each one carries
3Promise and record set side by sideThe term as written, the measured record, the gap and the evidence under it
4Controls appliedTerm checks, evidence-coverage checks, claim-window checks and comparison confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no breach is called at any of them — the agent is comparing, and the vendor manager lane opens at the evidence gate.
5DecisionSplits at the evidence gate
Evidence complete
Goes to the named vendor manager to decide.
Anything thin
Adds a commercial review first.
Vendor manager review
The gap is held with its term, its evidence and the days left in the claim window.
Confirm · Attach evidence · Send to commercial review
Confirmed — by the named vendor manager▼
6Vendor and contract records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedEvidence coverage, disputed gaps, manager corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each manager correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Declaring a vendor in breach of contract.
Issuing a claim for a service credit.
Accepting a remedy a vendor has offered.
Agreeing that a target was met.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Lift the committed service level out of the contract.
✓Assemble what the operational systems recorded against that term.
✓Set the promise and the record side by side with the evidence attached.
✓Count the days left before the claim window closes.
No breach is called and no credit claimed unless the named vendor manager decides it.
Judging whether a commitment binds at all.
Telling a vendor their performance is accepted.
Letting a claim window close on a live gap.
Changes to the contract, the terms or the record.
Example output
One service level, annotated
Our facilities agent handles vendor work orders and our vendor master agent handles banking-detail fraud; this one is what a vendor promised and what the record shows was delivered.
Service-level output · single termIllustrative example
Vendor
Recorded as
Term
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
Managed network vendor
Availability short of the committed term
Gap, evidenced
Monitoring record, 3 August 2026
Held unclaimed
The vendor manager, by name
As receivedBuilt from the contract schedule and the monitoring record, and it claims nothing beyond them.
What the record holdsContract scheduleMonitoring recordTicket timestamps
Why no claim hereClaiming a service credit is a decision that the vendor manager makes.
ActionConfirmAttach evidenceSend to commercial review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold a gap picks up a commercial read before the manager sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every commitmentFrom the contract that carries it
03Evidence
Where the evidence is used
The agent does not decide whether a vendor performed, only what the contract asked for, what the systems recorded, and how far apart the two of them sit.
01Approved path
The service level is the promise
A vendor can meet each target that is measured and still deliver a worse service, because the terms measure what somebody thought to write down.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No general law was located that sets service levels for the operational vendors an ordinary company depends on, that fixes how an outage must be measured, or that preserves a remedy nobody claimed in time. The duties here are contractual: the target is whatever the schedule says, the clock is whatever the notice clause sets, and both are read off the contract rather than assumed. A right you cannot evidence is treated as a right you do not have.
04Build an evidence trail
The service level, the evidence behind the breach and the owner who accepted it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Contract repositoryIcertis · Ironclad · Agiloft Service levels and notice clauses
Service managementServiceNow · Jira Service Desk Tickets, outages and repairs
Monitoring and telemetryAvailability and status feeds When a service was down, and how long
Agent
Vendor service-level evidence
Reads the commitment Assembles the record Holds for the manager
Procurement and financeCoupa · SAP Ariba · orders The lines work was priced against
A contract-level evidence-coverage figure can read clean while contracts with no measure defined carry most of the rework. Nestack reports the correction rate by contract, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Contracts with no measure defined
6.7%
3.7×
Review
Multi-site managed services
4.8%
2.7×
Review
Time-and-materials engagements
2.9%
1.6×
Watch
Standing fixed-scope contracts
1.6%
0.9×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. fixed-scope baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an unclaimed credit costs
A cycle closes when the unevidenced breach is a standing case. That suite is what the next service review is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on contracts with no measure defined.
02Diagnose
The service credit nobody claimed because nobody had kept the outage times is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Changes leave numbered, and the breaches behind them travel attached.
04Verify
A single red service-level case stops the whole release.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the service record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next service review is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, service-level comparison, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Service-level and automation-boundary mapping.
02Contract, ticketing and monitoring sources.
03Commitment-to-evidence and claim-window mapping.
04Contract and service-record ingestion.
05Term, evidence and contract binding.
06Gap scoring and review routing.
07Vendor manager decision workflow.
08Contract-system integration.
09Service-level and evidence cases.
10Guardrails and escalation controls.
11Service-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne contract, one cycleProductionProduction service reviewsAdvancedMultiple contracts / vendors
Introduced at Pilot
Comparison against your contract terms✓✓✓
Vendor manager decision✓✓✓
Vendor-population baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by vendor—✓✓
Manager review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Contract-repository integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-schedule term sets——✓
Cross-vendor service packs——✓
Large contract portfolios——✓
Multi-contract obligation controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, contract volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your live contracts and the service level each one sets→Term capture, evidence binding and claim-window clocksWeek 1
02Representative tickets, monitoring records and delivery notes→Evidence binding, comparison logic and the service-level baselineWeek 2
03Your service-review calendar and the manager it names→Term mapping, evidence binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Contract, ticketing and monitoring source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Service claims you would not want tested→Breach cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no service record may guarantee→Gap scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named vendor manager who decides the claim→Release to the vendor manager, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Two phases sit on week five because they genuinely do, and no band was widened just to look tidy.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Contract discovery, term capture and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the service-level baselineW3Comparison logic, evidence binding and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, breach cases and failure-mode testingW5Contract-system integration, pilot reviews and targeted correctionsW6One review cycle run under the vendor manager, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA band runs as far as the work it names and no further, and week five genuinely carries two.
At the end of W6When the service record validates, Agent Care picks the agent up.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Operations AI agent
Build a vendor coordination agent around the credit your last outage never claimed.
A credit you cannot evidence is a right you no longer have, and the window to claim it closes a set period after the quarter it belongs to. Show us your last service review and the outage record behind it, and we will show you which gaps could still be claimed.
