ScopeThird addition this quarter
The new request isn't in the signed scope“Include the implementation at no extra cost.” The SOW covers core implementation only. Nothing on record agrees to this.Not agreed — no reply has accepted itReview TaskFieldAI for agencies & account managers
Nobody agreed to the extra work.
Scope does not creep in a change request. It creeps in a friendly line at the end of a Thursday email — “and while you're in there” — that nobody priced, nobody refused, and everybody now assumes is included.
One-click Google sign-in · Personal email excluded in code · Export or delete everything anytime
By the time unpaid work is visible it is precedent. Three months of small additions have become the normal shape of the engagement, and asking to be paid for the fourth reads as a change of attitude rather than a correction.
The problem isn't the statement of work The SOW is usually fine. What is missing is anything watching the gap between what it says and what is being asked for in email — where the additions live, one sentence at a time, none of them worth a fight on its own.
The seven questions you already ask.
You ask most of these every week, usually without getting an answer to any of them. Here is what comes back instead.
- Is this account still healthy?Measured against how this client used to communicate with you, not against a benchmark. A client who has stopped asking questions is a different problem from one who was always terse.
- Did the scope just grow?A request that goes beyond what was agreed is checked against the agreement and surfaced as a contradiction, with the section it conflicts with attached — before somebody says yes by not saying no.
- What did we agree was included?The answer assembled from your own record: the signed document, the email where the exception was granted, and the call notes where it was discussed — rather than from whoever remembers the engagement best.
- Who's waiting on us?Commitments tracked in both directions, so the approval you have been waiting three weeks for is as visible as the deliverable they are waiting on from you.
- What changed since the last review?Dates that moved, terms that got restated, new stakeholders on the thread, and requests that were made and never answered — the things that will be awkward at the next QBR if nobody raised them at the time.
- What do I need before the QBR?An hour before the meeting: the history, open commitments on both sides, what changed, and every unresolved issue — built from your own correspondence with the people who will be in the room.
- Which renewal is at risk?Renewal risk shows up as several communication signals declining together across weeks, and an active agreement flag applies a direct penalty — because a contractual dispute and a cooling relationship are not separate things.
TaskFieldAcme Corp · scope riskExample workspace · illustrative data
This request goes past the agreement.
Commitmentwaiting 2d
You owe Priya the updated deck — 2 days overdueYou said “I'll send the updated deck by Friday” on June 4. Nothing has gone out.Priya is one of your key peopleSend it Waitingwaiting 15d
Sarah still owes you the pricing confirmationAsked August 7. No reply to the pricing section of the proposal in either direction since.Blocking the renewal conversationChase The scope request is flagged before anyone answers it, because the expensive moment is the silence after it — not the request itself.
It will not speak for you uninvited.
It starts by drafting only. Autonomy is something you grant later, in steps, and can take back.
A client emailDrafted in your voice from how you have actually written to that client. A reply declining extra work is exactly the email you want to read before it goes, so it waits for you.
A thread with a risk on itFrozen. An active agreement flag stops autonomous sending on that thread entirely, the check runs before any AI call, and there is no setting that turns it off.
Personal emailExcluded in code rather than by a preference. Structurally out of reach, including from us.
When it isn't sureIt says so. A claim it cannot verify comes back unverifiable rather than fine, and a contact without enough history reads “not enough history”, never “healthy”. The full brief →
Straight answers.
Does it read our contracts?
Only what you have already given it. Attachment content is off by default and gated in code; checks run on the email record and on documents you upload yourself, where the upload is the consent. File names and the fact that a message has an attachment are used, because a contract revision arriving quietly is itself a signal.
Can it aggregate health across all accounts for a manager?
Not today. Each person connects their own mailbox and sees their own accounts; there is no shared team view yet. Team memory is a roadmap item, and we would rather say that than let you buy it expecting otherwise.
Does it integrate with Zendesk or Intercom?
No. Gmail and Google Calendar are live; Slack, HubSpot, Notion, Salesforce and Microsoft Teams are on the roadmap. Support platforms are not currently among them.
What if the client genuinely is entitled to it?
Then the evidence shows that and no flag is raised. The check searches your history for anything supporting the request as well as anything contradicting it — if an email from you agreeing to it exists, it surfaces as support.
Scope creep is a series of small silences.
Connect Gmail and it reads your last 90 days of client email. The first thing it shows you is what was asked for and never agreed.
See what it findsNo credit card · Your data exports or deletes in one click