Three years from now, under challenge. Most in-house implementations store the data and re-render the document, and those are not the same thing. The difference only ever surfaces in a dispute, which is the worst possible moment to discover it.
We build to a stated requirement. Enforceability is your counsel’s call.
Lending, insurance, healthcare intake, HR onboarding, property management and professional services: companies whose contracts, consents or authorisations must be signed, stored and later produced. Usually the ones who have concluded that a per-seat signature vendor is either too expensive at their volume or too rigid for their process.
What the audit trail actually captures today, and what it would fail to produce under challenge. That second half is the deliverable.
Routing, reminders, counter-signature, expiry, void and re-issue, modelled as a state machine rather than as a set of email triggers.
Producing the artefact as it was, not as the current template would render it. Pinned, so a template change cannot rewrite history.
So the signed document lands where the process already lives, with the status visible to the people who need it.
A broken signing flow does not throw an error. It produces a document that looks fine until somebody contests it, which is why the test surface is the product here.
Current output is captured by tests first, so a rebuild is provably behaviour-preserving before it is an improvement.
The stored artefact is what the signer saw. Re-rendering from data is a different claim, and we will not let a system quietly make it.
You tell us the standard you are being held to; we implement it and show you where it is enforced in the code.
Tell us what gets signed, who has to see it afterwards, and what a challenge would look like. That usually settles the design in one conversation.
We reply within one business day.
Our fit rating for this market is Shipped, from the capability register we maintain internally. No client is named anywhere on this site. We state the actual scale of what we have run rather than implying a larger one. We do not opine on the legal enforceability of a signature.
