Kittatinny Payments

All three Kittatinny Payments documents were read and none is executed. Two Growth tier proposals, a draft of 27 Nov 2025 and a final of 2 Dec 2025, each price the subscription at £44k, and a 9 Nov 2025 security questionnaire sits alongside them. No contracted terms exist.

Executed: no document for Kittatinny Payments has a stored status of executed, so no contracted price, term, billing or service level can be stated. The three documents held are two proposals and one security questionnaire, and the roll-up covers all of them.

Open items: the final proposal of 2 Dec 2025 offers the Growth tier at £44k a year plus a fixed twelve thousand pound implementation, a Year 1 total of £56k. It lists security review sign-off, final contract sign-off and a kick-off as next steps.

The draft Proposal v1 of 27 Nov 2025 carries the same figures and is superseded in practice by the final proposal. The evidence does not show whether either proposal was accepted or whether an order form followed.

Pricing: £44k matches the v1 Growth list, but the 2 Dec 2025 proposal is dated after the v2 Growth list of £50k applied to new business from 1 Dec 2025. The evidence does not show whether this reflects an agreed discount.

Contradictions: the two proposals word billing and renewal differently. The 27 Nov 2025 draft says the upfront subscription grants access for the calendar year, while the 2 Dec 2025 final says it renews each year unless scope or tier is modified.

Implementation timing also shifts. The draft says implementation is typically completed within eight weeks of contract signature; the final says BG-Demo aims to complete it within eight weeks of contract execution.

Commitments: there are no live commitments, because nothing is executed. The 9 Nov 2025 security questionnaire states a Growth tier P1 first response within one business hour, SOC 2 Type II, and TLS and AES-256 encryption, but it is not an order form.

Gaps: neither proposal states availability, P1 response, connector delivery dates or payment terms, and no document names a signatory. The evidence does not show whether the customer accepted the security questionnaire answers.

AI · claude-opus-5-5 · as at Fri 9 Oct 2026