The deal was agreed on the call. The paper took three weeks.

Stop losing the deal to your own process

A seller's contract problem is rarely the terms. It is the number of hand-offs between “yes” and a signature, each one an opportunity for the buyer to cool off.

• Paper where the deal happened — The agreement opens in the room that holds the conversation, so the buyer never leaves the thread to go find an attachment in a different tool.
• Drafted from what was discussed — Scope, term, pricing tier and parties are filled from the conversation that produced them, so the first draft is not a retyping exercise.
• Concessions inside policy — Which discounts, terms and caps a rep may concede is encoded. The deal moves at the rep's pace without moving outside what the company approved.
• Approvals that find themselves — A non-standard term routes to finance or legal automatically, attached to the exact clause and version, rather than becoming a chased email.
• Signature without an export — Signing happens against the version that was agreed, in the same room, with signer identity captured — no third tab, no re-upload.
• Follow-up handled — The assistant owns the reminder cadence and the counterparty's small questions, so a stalled signature does not depend on a rep remembering.

Vendor paper, handled without a queue

Procurement's problem is the mirror image: a stream of vendor agreements on the vendor's paper, each needing the same checks against the same policy.

• Intake on your terms — Requests arrive structured — vendor, spend, data handling, renewal shape — so triage starts with facts instead of a forwarded quote.
• Policy checks before people — Inbound paper is compared against your buying policy and the deviations are listed with their effect, so a reviewer starts from the exposure.
• Negotiated back to standard — Where your policy has a position, the assistant proposes it and handles the vendor's response — the unglamorous back-and-forth that otherwise waits for a human.
• Obligations extracted — Spend commitments, notice periods, auto-renewal triggers and termination rights come out of the executed document as data.
• Renewals before the window — Because the notice period is known from the paper, a renewal surfaces while you still have leverage rather than after it auto-extends.
• A defensible trail — What the vendor proposed, what you countered, who approved the exception and against which version — recorded without anyone maintaining a log.

When buyer and seller both bring an agent

This is the case no attachment-based process can answer. Two agents, each bound by its own side's policy, converge on the clauses that are genuinely tradeable and escalate the ones that are not.

• Each side keeps its own mandate — Neither agent sees the other's instructions. Each proposes only positions its own policy permits, so convergence happens without either party revealing its floor.
• Clause by clause, not document by document — Agreement accumulates on the clauses both mandates allow, leaving a short list of real disagreements instead of a full redline round trip.
• Humans on the exceptions only — Each side's escalations go to its own approver. You answer your questions; the counterparty answers theirs; the agents resume.
• One shared record — Both parties see the same turn log and the same version history, which removes the argument about what was offered and when.

What finance and legal insist on keeping

Speed in a commercial process is only acceptable if the guardrails are real. These are enforced as boundaries, not suggestions.

• Policy: Discount and term limits per deal size
• Policy: Clauses that always require an approver
• Policy: Spend thresholds that change the approval path
• Policy: Turn and spend caps per negotiation
• Approval: Gates attached to clauses, not to documents
• Approval: Approvals bound to a version and an identity
• Approval: Escalations arrive as a decision with both positions
• Approval: Organization-wide kill switch for every agent
• Evidence: Every proposal and counter recorded in order
• Evidence: Agent actions attributed in the timeline
• Evidence: Signature identity captured against the signed version
• Evidence: Exportable record per agreement

What commercial teams check first

• Will this let a rep give away margin faster? The opposite. Today a rep concedes in email and legal finds out later. Here the concessions a rep may make are encoded, so anything outside policy stops and routes to an approver before the counterparty ever sees it.
• What if the counterparty will not use Paqt? They do not have to adopt anything. A counterparty participates in the room by invitation, signs there, and keeps the executed document. The agent-to-agent flow is available when both sides have one, but nothing requires it.
• Does procurement have to move onto our paper? No. Inbound vendor paper is compared against your policy and negotiated back toward it. Working on the counterparty's document is the normal case, not a degraded one.
• How does this interact with our existing systems? Paqt exposes its agreement surface over the Model Context Protocol, so an agent or internal tool you already run can open rooms, read state and drive the workflow directly. The complete record also exports as a single package per agreement.