The offer is standard. The jurisdiction is not.

What happens between “yes” and a signature

The gap is mostly administrative: picking the right template, filling it correctly, answering three predictable questions and chasing a signature.

• Capture the offer once — Role, level, compensation, equity, start date and location are captured as structured terms, so nothing is retyped into a document by hand.
• Select the jurisdiction template — The template is chosen by work location from the set your counsel approved, so the enforceable language is right before anyone drafts.
• Check against the approved band — Compensation and equity are validated against the approved range for the level. Anything outside it stops and routes to the approver who owns it.
• Answer the routine questions — Notice period, probation, benefits start and relocation terms are answered from the document itself, in the room, without a recruiter relaying them.
• Sign and file — The candidate signs against the version they were shown, with identity captured, and the executed agreement is retained with its full history.

One offer, many enforceable versions

A clause library organised by jurisdiction is the difference between a template set that scales and a folder of documents nobody trusts. Paqt treats the jurisdiction as a property of the clause, not of the file name.

• Clauses tagged by jurisdiction — Notice, probation, restrictive covenants and termination terms exist per jurisdiction in a library your counsel maintains and your team draws from.
• Assembled, not copy-pasted — An offer is assembled from the clauses that apply, so a counsel-approved change to one jurisdiction's notice clause propagates to the next offer instead of to none.
• Counsel reviews the library, not every offer — Review attention moves to the template set. Individual offers only reach a human when they deviate from an approved band or an approved clause.
• Provable consistency — Which clause version each employee signed is a matter of record, which is what makes a later policy change auditable rather than archaeological.

The agreements that follow someone joining

An employment relationship generates paper for years. Each piece should point at the agreement it changes rather than becoming another file.

• Amendments and promotions — A compensation change or title change attaches to the clause it modifies, so the operative terms of employment stay readable in one place.
• Probation and review dates — Dates that carry consequences are extracted from the executed agreement, so a probation window closes on purpose rather than by default.
• Fixed-term renewals — Term end dates and notice requirements come from the document, which matters most in jurisdictions where a missed notice converts the arrangement.
• Contractor and consultant paper — The same mechanics cover contractor agreements, statements of work and extensions, with their own templates and their own approval gates.
• One record per person — Offer, agreement, amendments, signatures and the conversation that produced them live together, so the file is not assembled from four systems.
• Policy acknowledgements — Documents that need a countersignature are issued and tracked the same way, with the signed version and identity retained.

What people teams check first

• Is the assistant giving employment-law advice? No. It drafts from templates and clauses your own counsel approved for each jurisdiction, and it does not reason about whether a term is enforceable. Where an offer deviates from an approved clause or band, it stops and routes to a human. Paqt is software, not a law firm.
• Can it answer a candidate's questions directly? It answers from the document — notice period, probation, benefits start, what the equity schedule says. Anything that is a negotiation rather than a clarification is escalated, because changing an offer is not a question the assistant should be answering.
• How do we keep templates current across jurisdictions? Clauses are versioned in a library with a jurisdiction, so counsel updates the clause once and the next offer assembles from the new version. You can see which clause version each existing agreement used.
• What about sensitive compensation data? Visibility is scoped per party inside the room, so a candidate sees their own offer and internal discussion stays internal. Access is scoped, data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and every agent action is attributed in the timeline.