Frequently Asked Questions

Transactency is a contract negotiation platform built on shared playbooks. Instead of two sides trading blind markups back and forth, both parties work from the same transparent framework. You see what's negotiable, what the common positions are, and where your counterparty stands. It's designed to cut through the redline theater and get deals done faster.

Nothing, right now. During beta, Transactency is free to practice on: no credit card, no seat count, no catch. Paid plans will come later, and we're still working out the fairest way to price a platform like this... more to come. Whatever we land on, you'll hear about it well before anything changes.

Not yet... and that's on purpose. During beta, every deal on Transactency is a practice deal. Build an agreement, send it to a colleague or a friendly counterparty, negotiate it, even sign it. The signed copy carries a non-binding watermark, so nothing counts and nothing's at stake. We'd rather you learn the playbook cold, from both sides of the table, before you ever put a real deal on it. We'll let you know before live deals open.

Not at all. Transactency isn't about replacing lawyers; it's about streamlining the contract process. If you're using a lawyer to assist you, they can focus on what actually matters. You can grant your attorney varying levels of access: read-only, read/write, or full proxy authority to negotiate on your behalf. We're augmenting legal, not eliminating it.

Almost always... because the other side wins too. The old way is a battle of forms: whose paper, whose redlines, who caught what. Transactency replaces that with neutral ground: one shared playbook where every option is on the table and visible to both sides from the first move. That's not something most counterparties resist. It's trust from the outset, and it's a relief. On top of that, your counterparty never pays to negotiate with you, and their side is the lightest-touch part of the platform: they open the shared playbook, see your selections with the other options right next to them, and accept, counter, or reserve for additional discussion. No blind markups, no guessing what changed. Most growing businesses are living the same redline pain you are, so it's not a hard sell. And during beta the ask is even smaller: you're inviting them to a practice deal. Nothing's binding, so there's nothing to lose by trying it.

No. The legal is the legal. Our agreements are drafted to the standard a large company's legal department expects. What changes is how the deal gets done, not the quality of the paper. We started with smaller companies because they feel the redline pain most and have nobody to absorb it. Bigger companies are welcome... especially the ones tired of paying for redline theater and ready to put both sides on the same map.

Different layer... and they work together. A CLM lives after signing: storage, obligation tracking, renewals, reporting. Transactency lives in the negotiation, before anyone signs. The clean document you finish with drops right into your CLM. You don't need a negotiation platform because you have a CLM; the honest answer is you want both.

Not as documents, and that's deliberate. In Transactency, a template isn't a Word file. It's your positions. You build playbook templates by making your choices once (say, three NDAs: one for deal partners, one for new hires, one for M&A), and from then on they do double duty. Start an agreement from one without answering every question, or apply one to an agreement you receive on Transactency and see exactly where it differs from your standards. The power comes from both parties working from the same playbook, so a small upfront investment of your time pays off on every deal after. And if your current form has a term the playbook doesn't cover, the addendum lets you add your own language.

No. Anyone can publish a static template. The ABA has done it for decades, and the document is the deliverable. We templated something different: the playbook itself, the decision tree of what's actually negotiable and what positions exist for each issue. The playbook drives the language, not the other way around. Your playbook templates are your positions on that decision tree, saved once and used two ways: to start the agreements you send, and to check the ones you receive against your standards.

No. We provide a platform to help you create and negotiate contracts, but we're not acting as your lawyer and have no opinion on how you should proceed within our system. If you have questions about the content of agreements or the choices you should make, we recommend consulting your own legal counsel.

The platform provides pre-written provisions aligned to the positions you select. This is intentional: it eliminates the syntactic churn (shall vs. will, passive vs. active voice, etc.) that triggers unnecessary redlines. You can always modify language if needed via our addendum feature, but we've found most users prefer the speed and consistency of our approach.

We're starting with commercial agreements (MSAs, service agreements, vendor contracts) that represent the bulk of business-to-business deal friction. We'll be expanding to additional contract types based on user demand. Sign up and help shape what we build next.

Most AI contract tools work like this: load your playbook, point it at the other side's contract, get back a redline. Then their side does the same thing to yours. That's more redlines, not fewer... making it easier to run headfirst into a wall twice as fast doesn't help. We kept the good part of that idea (set your standards once, apply them every time) and dropped the redline. Apply a playbook template to an agreement you receive on Transactency and you see exactly where their choices differ from yours. Nothing is inferred: every difference is a specific, visible choice, and the other side is looking at the same playbook you are. AI does single-party work. Transactency is a multi-party platform. Different category, not a faster version of the same thing. We laid out the full argument, and why this category outlasts the AI wave, in our Platform Risk Whitepaper.