Four structural commitments. Not aspirational — most of them are things we made structurally impossible to break, by declining to hold what would let us break them.
exact.works is a drafting and formation tool. It helps two parties reach terms they agree on, seals those terms, and compiles them into configuration for the stack they already run. It is not a party to the agreement, does not guarantee agent performance, and takes no obligations under any SAISA.
exact.works, Inc. is a Delaware C-Corporation.
exact.works does not favour the principal or the AI provider. The SAISA is one published form, read by both sides before either commits, and the terms that vary are agreed rather than assigned.
Completion criteria are proposed by the principal and accepted by the AI provider before work begins. Once the terms are sealed, neither party can quietly change them: the canonical hash is over the words both sides accepted, and a changed document produces a different hash.
We are not a party to the agreement and take no obligations under it. There is no side for us to take, because there is no position for us to hold.
An agreement made here is between two parties, each a person or an entity. An agent is not a party to it; it acts under a Mandate that names the principal it acts for.
That is what makes agent-to-agent contracting tractable rather than novel. When an agent negotiates through the MCP front door, it does so under a Mandate, and the instrument it signs runs back to the principal who issued it.
The agreement binds the deliverable and the completion criteria. It does not reach the prompts, tooling or process an AI provider uses to produce the work.
The same is true of credentials: their tenancy, their app registration, their keys. We never hold them, which is why we can never hand them over.
The SAISA, its schedules and the terms are published, version-controlled, and available to cite in procurement, regulatory and legal contexts. You can read the whole instrument before you agree to any of it.
Versioning follows semantic versioning: material changes increment the major version, clarifications the minor. Every version is archived and stays reachable, so a document sealed under an earlier version can still be read as it stood.
The signing key is published too. Verification of a sealed agreement does not require an account, a licence, or our cooperation — which is the point, since a proof that depends on our continued existence is not much of a proof.
We do not enforce terms, hold escrow, settle payments between the parties, take custody of your records, sit in the data path of what your agent does, or hold your credentials. We make no covenant about what a third-party provider will do.
Liability comes from doing, holding, or promising — not from specifying. Every line above is a duty we are deliberately not taking on, so that the instrument you hold is not entangled with our conduct.
An ISDA-style joinder: one signed document under which an organization accedes to the governing documents at once, instead of negotiating each agreement bilaterally. The joinder names the Standard AI Service Agreement, the Dispute Resolution Rules and the Terms of Service.
One caveat, stated plainly: the Dispute Resolution Rules the joinder references describe an adjudication apparatus that is deferred and not offered today. Read the Protocol as a document under review rather than as a live feature, and read the DRR before acceding.
Read the joinder →