Audit
SOW vs deliverables verification
Thesis
'Did we deliver everything in the SOW?' requires manual checking. Cross-document matching can verify automatically.
The Problem
Project closeout is a mess: Did we deliver everything in the SOW? Someone has to manually check. What about change orders? Were those completed? Any scope that got dropped? By project end, nobody remembers what was promised. This matters for renewals, referrals, and not getting burned. But checking is tedious, so it doesn't happen.
Implementation Approaches
SOW to Deliverables Matcher (Recommended)
AI compares SOW line items to completed work
Implementation
- →Parse SOW into discrete deliverables
- →Connect to file storage, tickets, time logs
- →AI matches: what was promised vs what exists
- →Report: delivered, missing, modified, added
- →Change order tracking built in
Pros
- +Clear, actionable closeout checklist
- +Catches things before final invoice
- +Protects against client 'we never got X' claims
- +Flywheel: learns what deliverables look like across projects
Cons
- −Needs clean SOW parsing (messy contracts are hard)
- −Deliverable 'matching' is fuzzy
- −Requires files/tickets to be organized enough
Time Log Verification
Compare hours scoped vs hours logged by category
Implementation
- →Parse SOW for hour estimates by category
- →Pull actual time from tracking tools
- →Report: over/under by category
- →Flag categories with no logged time
Pros
- +Simpler matching (hours are numbers)
- +Clear signal for what got attention
- +Easy integration with existing time tools
- +Can run throughout project, not just at end
Cons
- −Hours don't equal deliverables
- −Time might be logged but work not delivered
- −Depends on accurate time categorization
Client Sign-Off Tool
Structured closeout workflow with client verification
Implementation
- →Generate checklist from SOW
- →Client marks each item as received/approved
- →Track sign-off status
- →Generate acceptance documentation
Pros
- +Gets client on record confirming delivery
- +Clear paper trail
- +Simple to build
- +Can be part of final invoice flow
Cons
- −Requires client participation
- −Doesn't verify delivery itself
- −Manual checklist creation
Validation Plan
Hypothesis to Test
Agencies will pay $19/mo to verify project delivery against contracts automatically
Validation Phases
Retrospective Audit
1 week- •Get 3 recently completed projects with SOW + deliverables
- •Manually audit: did delivery match SOW?
- •Find gaps: what was missed, what was added
- •Show agencies: 'Here's what you might have missed'
Parser MVP
2 weeks- •Build SOW parser for common formats
- •Build deliverable matcher (files, tickets)
- •Test on 5 real projects
- •Measure: matching accuracy, false positives
Workflow Integration
2 weeks- •Integrate with Guildry's project completion flow
- •Add client sign-off component
- •Test full closeout workflow
- •Validate $19/mo pricing
Kill Criteria
Stop and move on if any of these become true:
- ✕SOW parsing too unreliable for messy contracts
- ✕Deliverable matching has too many false positives
- ✕Agencies don't care enough about formal closeout
- ✕Too much manual work to get value