Service Desk
Departure to reviewThe IP indemnity shares the £480,000 general liability cap.
PHOENIX BY CURTIS FITCH / PILOT PROGRAMME
Your standard terms.
The departures that matter.
See what needs review.
Compare contract clauses with your approved Policy Library, using the AI your organisation approves. See where each agreement departs, then rank completed assessments to focus your review.
By Curtis FitchProcurement software since 2004Curtis Fitch · ISO 27001View the independently issued certificate Explore CF SuiteThe wider procurement platform
Certification relates to Curtis Fitch’s stated scope. Phoenix pilot deployment and data arrangements are agreed separately.
01 / A 30-SECOND PRODUCT TOUR
Your policy.
Every departure, clear.
Choose a policy, compare each contract with your standard terms, then see which departures need attention across the portfolio.
Try the policy comparisonGuided product example · Northbridge Procurement · synthetic data and illustrative ratings.
Read the tour summary
- Choose your policy. Select Purchasing Playbook v1.0 and two of six contracts: Service Desk (£480,000) and Data Hosting (£315,000).
- Compare standard terms. See Service Desk’s contract terms beside the policy standard. Its weighted deviation is 46.9 out of 100, with all four example checks answered. Higher deviation means further from the standard.
- Prioritise departures. Keep deviation and coverage separate: Data Hosting scores 3.6 out of 100 on its three answered checks, with recovery information missing. This partial assessment has no final rank. Across both contracts, the eight checks contain four standard positions, two fallbacks, one departure and one missing answer. Open Service Desk’s supplier IP departure to see register row 40 beside the policy position.
Illustrative weighting: liability and supplier IP each carry weight 9; exit and recovery each carry weight 3. Preferred terms score 0, fallbacks 0.25 and departures 1, divided by answered weights and scaled to 100. Missing answers are excluded from the score and prevent final ranking.
ASK PHOENIX / FROM QUESTION TO EVIDENCE
Ask a useful question.
See what supports the answer.
Find the contracts that matter. Ask about selected agreements. Check each answer against its source and your standard terms.
Scripted demoWhat would you like to know?
Explore your contracts, compare terms and follow the evidence.
You
Which contracts have a total initial-term value over £300,000?
Phoenix Register answer · GBP
Two contracts over £300,000 — £795,000 combined.
These two records exceed £300,000. The other four are below that threshold.
| Contract | Initial-term value |
|---|---|
| Service DeskOutsourcing AgreementRegister row 40 | £480,000 |
| Data HostingInfrastructure AgreementRegister row 13 | £315,000 |
6 records checked · values use the same currency and initial-term basis.
2 supporting sources
[1] Service Desk Outsourcing AgreementRegister row 40
Total initial-term value: £480,000.
[2] Data Hosting Infrastructure AgreementRegister row 13
Total initial-term value: £315,000.
You
Compare supplier IP indemnity in Service Desk and Data Hosting against our policy. Where do they depart?
Phoenix Policy comparison
Approved benchmark Purchasing Playbook v1.0
Service Desk departs from the IP standard.
Your preferred position is an uncapped supplier IP indemnity. Service Desk caps it; Data Hosting records it as uncapped.
Your standardSupplier IP indemnity: uncapped
Data Hosting
Meets this standardUncapped supplier IP indemnity, with an amendment recorded in the register.
This answer covers the IP position only. Review other policy checks before judging the agreement as a whole.
3 supporting sources
[1] Purchasing PlaybookApproved benchmark · v1.0
Preferred supplier IP indemnity: uncapped.
[2] Service Desk Outsourcing AgreementRegister row 40
Supplier IP indemnity: subject to the £480,000 general liability cap.
[3] Data Hosting Infrastructure AgreementRegister row 13
Supplier IP indemnity: uncapped; an amendment is recorded.
You
Do Service Desk and Data Hosting both meet our four-hour recovery target?
Phoenix Policy comparison
Approved benchmark Purchasing Playbook v1.0
Service Desk meets the target. Data Hosting needs evidence.
Service Desk records a four-hour target. Data Hosting has no recovery target recorded in this source, so I cannot confirm it meets the policy.
Service Desk
Meets this standardFour-hour recovery target recorded.
Data Hosting
Missing evidenceA blank register field does not establish whether the contract meets or departs from the standard.
3 supporting sources
[1] Purchasing PlaybookApproved benchmark · v1.0
Recovery target: four hours or less.
[2] Service Desk Outsourcing AgreementRegister row 40
Recovery target: four hours.
[3] Data Hosting Infrastructure AgreementRegister row 13
Recovery target: not recorded in this source.
Example questions only · Check the source before acting.
Explore the Phoenix interface. Choose an example chat, send a suggested question or open its sources. This demonstration uses fictional Northbridge Procurement records and scripted answers; it makes no live AI requests.
02 / EXPLORE PHOENIX
From a single clause.
To a portfolio of contracts.
Choose a policy version. Compare its preferred terms and fallbacks with each contract. Use the deviation rating and evidence coverage together to decide what needs attention.
Select a tab to explore. Open a source to see the evidence behind a finding.
PHOENIXNorthbridge ProcurementSYNTHETIC DEMOASK PHOENIX
Same question. Two contracts.
A clear comparison.
Compare Service Desk and Data Hosting. Where do the protections differ?
| Contract term | 01 / OUTSOURCINGService DeskOutsourcing Agreement | 02 / SAASData HostingInfrastructure Agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Total initial-term value | £480,000 | £315,000 |
| General liability cap | £480,000100% of total value · mutual | £630,000200% of total value · mutual |
| Supplier IP indemnityMaterial difference | CappedShares the general liability cap | UncappedRecorded amendment applies |
| Exit assistance | 90 daysAt existing rates | 30 daysAt agreed rates |
| Automatic renewal | No automatic renewal | 12 months90 days’ notice to stop renewal |
| Source record |
The difference worth discussing. Data Hosting records broader supplier IP protection. Service Desk provides longer exit assistance. Both general caps also limit your own liability.
POLICY LIBRARY / CONTRACT COMPARISON
Your standard beside each contract.
Each departure in context.
46.9 / 100
Complete assessment
4/4 checks · 100% weighted coverage
3.6 / 100
Partial · not ranked
3/4 checks · 87.5% weighted coverage
Lower deviation = closer to your standard.
4Meet the standard
2Acceptable fallbacks
1Departure to review
1Missing evidence
| Your example position | Service Desk | Data Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| General cap: 200% of total valueFallback: 100% | Fallback100% · £480,000 | Meets standard200% · £630,000 |
| Supplier IP indemnity: uncappedCapped indemnity requires review | Review departureSubject to the general cap | Meets standardUncapped IP indemnity |
| Exit assistance: 90 daysFallback: 30 days | Meets standard90 days | Fallback30 days |
| Recovery target: within 4 hoursA documented target is required | Meets standard4-hour recovery target | Missing evidenceNot recorded in this source |
One departure. Evidence linked. Ready for the owner. Service Desk’s capped supplier IP indemnity needs a decision against your standard.
POLICY LIBRARY / REVIEW PRIORITY
Rank departures from
the same standard.
Review priority
Purchasing Playbook · v1.001
Service DeskComplete · 4/4 checks · capped IP indemnity
46.9/ 100 deviation
—
Data HostingNeeds evidence · 3/4 checks · recovery target missing
3.6partial · not ranked
Rank complete assessments against the same policy version. Critical departures come first, then the deviation rating. Missing evidence stays outside the final ranking.
Contracts in view6Example portfolio
Total declared value£1.675mGBP · initial-term totals
Contracts over £300k2£795,000 combined value
Assessment coverage2 / 64 contracts not yet assessed
Contract value
Service Desk Outsourcing£480,000
Data Hosting Infrastructure£315,000
AI Governance£285,000
Technology Modernisation£268,000
Cyber Threat Monitoring£249,000
Consultancy Services£78,000
Showing all 6 example contracts.
INTERACTIVE PRODUCT ILLUSTRATION Northbridge Procurement is a fictional customer. Service Desk and Data Hosting are synthetic register records, shown with Purchasing Playbook v1.0.
THE COMMERCIAL CONTEXT
A low liability cap.
A high-value contract.
See the contract value, the cap and the indemnity together before deciding what deserves review.
- Contracts in the portfolio
- 6
- Total declared value
- £1.675m
- Across 2 contracts over £300k
- £795k
HIGH-VALUE CONTRACT / 01
Service Desk
Outsourcing agreement
- Initial-term value
- £480,000
- General liability cap
- £480,000 100% of total value
Supplier IP indemnityCapped
Subject to the general cap. The selected policy calls for an uncapped supplier IP indemnity.
HIGH-VALUE CONTRACT / 02
Data Hosting
Infrastructure agreement
- Initial-term value
- £315,000
- General liability cap
- £630,000 200% of total value
Supplier IP indemnityUncapped
Meets the selected policy for supplier IP. Recovery information is still missing from this assessment.
Synthetic Northbridge example · All bars use the same £630,000 scale. Values are declared contract amounts, not estimated losses. Both general caps also limit your organisation’s liability.
START WITH DATA YOU CAN TRUST
A useful answer starts
with a reliable register.
Agree what comes in, who can see it and how every finding will be checked.
Bring order to your records.
During onboarding, map source fields, agree consistent category names, reconcile versions and review possible duplicates before relying on portfolio totals.
Keep missing values visible. Preserve declared currencies, value bases and source rows.
The right records.
The right people.
Workspace and project permissions control access. Tag one or more contracts to limit a question to those selected records.
See the access modelEvidence ready for the owner.
Open the contract evidence beside the policy position, so reviewers can see why a term matches, falls back or departs.
Document clauses and register rows retain their source references. Missing evidence stays visible.
USEFUL. TRACEABLE. GOVERNABLE.
Answers you can check.
Decisions you control.
Good AI review needs more than a well-written prompt. Phoenix combines access controls, source checks and defined policy rules to help reduce errors and make findings easier to verify.
Start with the right records.
Phoenix checks workspace, project and record permissions before retrieving evidence. Select contracts to keep the question focused on the agreements you want to review.
Enforced before retrievalKeep the source close.
Ask Phoenix checks cited quotations against the supplied source and version before saving an answer. Open the reference to check the wording and its context yourself.
Source and version checksCompare with a named policy.
Choose the applicable policy version, including its preferred terms and fallbacks. Draft standards remain provisional, so a draft cannot quietly become your approved position.
Explicit policy versionGive the numbers a clear basis.
Register filters, counts and saved policy ratings use application rules and recorded data. Keep the currency, value basis and scoring method alongside the result.
Defined calculationsMake missing evidence visible.
Missing, conflicting or outdated evidence needs attention. Incomplete assessments stay outside the final ranking, and an answer should say when the available material is insufficient.
Gaps remain unresolvedKeep the decision with your team.
Review the conclusion as well as the quotation. Ask Phoenix chat produces candidate answers; policy approval and record changes happen through their separate, controlled workflows.
Human review and approvalBUILDING PHOENIX
What we’re working on.
THE PHOENIX WORD TOOLBAR
Your standards.
Right beside the clause.
A Phoenix button in Word opens a review pane alongside your agreement. Compare the selected clause with an approved policy, prepare a change and follow the revision history.
- Contract wording and policy, together
- Proposed amendments for your review
- Original document and revisions in view
INSIDE PHOENIX
The thinking behind the product.
Practical guidance and perspectives for procurement teams.
Trust & security
AI in contract review: control, evidence and continuous improvement
AI deployment, data access and answer quality: what works today, what testing shows and what comes next.
Product updates
Beyond the contract repository.
The value is in the comparison, the departure and the evidence.
Trust & security
AI with a clear boundary.
Start with permitted records, an approved connection and a reviewable answer.
OTHER SECTORS / DEVELOPING WITH PARTNERS
One foundation.
New ways to serve your clients.
From accounting projects to legal matters and property portfolios, we’re exploring how Phoenix can organise documents, surface evidence and support professional advice.
Explore sectors and partner opportunitiesPHOENIX PARTNERS
Your expertise.
A new advisory opportunity.
For procurement, legal, accounting, property and commercial advisers, with discovery opportunities in criminal justice. Introduce clients, deliver implementation, build ongoing advisory services or help develop a sector workflow.
Explore the partner programmePILOT PHOENIX
Your contracts.
Your standard.
See the difference.
Choose a contract category and a question worth answering. We’ll agree the data, review process and what success looks like with your team.
- 01Choose a focused use case
For example, supplier liability across your IT contracts.
- 02Bring your benchmark
Agree your standard positions, fallbacks and reviewers.
- 03Measure the value
Review useful findings, evidence quality and time saved.
A fixed-fee pilot, agreed up front. We’ll confirm the scope, duration and success measures with you before starting.
Pilot Phoenix
Tell us where contract review takes the most effort.
We’ll reply within two working days to arrange a 30-minute scoping call.
Already on CF Suite? Tell us and we’ll start from your existing records.
Built by Curtis Fitch.
Shaped around procurement decisions.