Before signature
The estimate that covered a third of what the client thought they were buying
Two documents described two different products and both carried our logo. I stopped the contract, wrote the discrepancy register, and split the release into a fundraising build and a regulated one.
- How much of the client's version one the estimate actually covered
- 30–40%How much of the client's version one the estimate actually covered
- Split into a fundraising build and a regulated build
- 2 milestonesSplit into a fundraising build and a regulated build
- Document contradictions resolved before signature, not after
- 1 registerDocument contradictions resolved before signature, not after
The client
A venture-funded health-tech startup in Northern Europe, small in-house team, mid-fundraise. Building a clinical measurement product whose regulatory classification was still moving while the contract was being signed.
The engagement
Pre-contract scope alignment inside an active commercial negotiation — days, not weeks, with a signature date already in the calendar.
The problem
The client's idea of version one and our estimate were describing different products — ours covered roughly a third of theirs. While that was being reconciled the target moved again: the product was now heading toward registration as a regulated medical device, which pulls in a quality management system and a full clinical documentation package that no line of the estimate contained. On top of that, the commercial documents contradicted each other on the target platform and on the name of a core test.
What I did
I refused to let the contract close on ambiguity, which is the expensive kind of politeness. Every contradiction across the workbook, timeline, statement of work and invoice went into a single register with a proposed resolution and an owner, and the register went to the client rather than being quietly patched on our side. The milestone structure was renegotiated into two honestly different things: a front-end build whose job was to raise money, with the intelligence layer explicitly mocked, and a later regulated build carrying the device documentation. The regulatory package was flagged as new money rather than a variation, and a first-week feasibility spike on the hardware and integration path was made a precondition of committing to any date at all.
What was built
A scope reset delivered as three artefacts: a written gap analysis stating the delta as a percentage, a discrepancy register reconciling every contradiction across the commercial documents, and a re-cut milestone structure separating a front-end fundraising build from a later regulated build carrying the quality system and clinical documentation set.
On the table at the end
- Gap analysis: our estimate against the client's stated version one
- Discrepancy register across workbook, timeline, statement of work and invoice
- Re-cut milestone structure with two definitions of done
- Regulatory scope note identifying what the baseline never contained
What it changed
Prevented a contract from being signed on a scope gap of sixty to seventy per cent, converted an unfunded regulatory package into an explicit commercial decision rather than a later dispute, and gave the client a fundraising-ready milestone that did not depend on the regulated work landing first.
How it ran
- 01
Name the gap in writing
Our estimate against the client's version one, side by side, with the delta as a percentage rather than 'some differences'.
- 02
Discrepancy register
Every contradiction across the commercial documents listed with a proposed resolution and an owner, then walked through with the client rather than emailed.
- 03
Re-cut the milestones
A fundraising build with the intelligence mocked, and a later regulated build — two products with two definitions of done.
- 04
Price the regulation
Quality system, clinical document set and traceability matrix identified as absent from the baseline and raised as a separate commercial decision.
- 05
Feasibility before commitment
A first-week hardware and integration spike agreed as a gate, so the schedule rested on a tested assumption.
Other work
All case studies →- Aviation
Twenty days of discovery that priced a year of build
An airport group needed to replace a security-credentialling system under a sovereign compliance regime. Twenty person-days of discovery produced five approved deliverables and an effort envelope the fixed-price contract could stand on.
- Software services
What the projects actually earned, once someone put cost next to revenue
Margin was assumed to be about half. Reading revenue, cost and hours together showed a spread from a third to three quarters — and one project that had quietly overrun its ceiling without a change request.
- Delivery staffing
Rejecting the entire shortlist
A regulated milestone depended on one rare engineering skill. Everyone available was a comfortable yes, so I said no to all of them and re-sourced against a single weighted axis.
Something similar on your plate?
Thirty minutes, no deck. I will tell you whether it is worth doing at all.