24% of the standard form was not standard.
Approved templates exist so that 1,240 contracts do not need 1,240 reviews. That only holds while the template survives contact with a counterparty's legal team, and nobody finds out whether it did until somebody counts.
1,240 contracts against 9 approved templates
The bottom band is the one that matters — a clause the template required, removed entirely.
- Unmodified 612
- Minor edits only 331
- Material change to a standard clause 218
- Standard clause removed entirely 79
297 contracts departed materially from the approved form. Seventy-nine of them dropped a required clause altogether, and every one of those was signed by somebody who believed they were signing the standard document.
Everything here is disclosable
Which changes the requirements rather than merely raising them. An answer that cannot be traced to a document is not usable in this setting at all.
- Provenance is not a nice-to-have
- Every claim resolving to a document you can produce is the condition of using any of this, not a feature of it.
- Residency is not negotiable
- Public-sector data does not leave, and the question arrives in procurement rather than in a demo.
- The access log is the audit answer
- Who at the vendor touched the file, published rather than asserted, including the requests that were refused.
- Deviation reporting, not deviation blocking
- The value is knowing which 297 departed and why. A system that refuses to let anyone amend a template gets routed around within a month.