Service agreements became operational
SLAs, credits, notice periods, and remedies now depend on runtime behavior that no legal team can see.
Legal service platform · OTel-first evidence
Contract-grade evidence for enterprise service agreements
Trust GTW reconciles telemetry from both counterparties into a neutral, tamper-evident record of every obligation, breach, notice, and remedy under your service agreements.
OTel-first architecture Direct service traffic, mirrored evidence
Neutral ledger Client Systems Apps, services, integrations
Provider Systems APIs, services, platforms
Trust GTW Neutral evidence ledger
Reconciled evidence timeline Client and provider views matched under the agreement
- Telemetry mirrored from both sides
- Obligation evaluated against the SLA
- Exclusions and notices applied
- Breach recorded with neutral evidence
- Remedy triggered under the agreement
- Entry sealed in the ledger
Why now
Why this matters now
Enterprises carry contractual exposure both ways
The same company is a client under some agreements and a provider under others, with obligations running in both directions.
Evidence is still reconstructed by hand
Breach claims are still assembled from logs, tickets, dashboards, emails, and screenshots, months after the fact.
Service agreements & SLAs
Model every SA and the SLAs underneath it, with thresholds, exclusions, notice periods, and remedy terms.
Breach evidence
Detect and evidence breaches with reconciled telemetry from both counterparties, not one side's word.
Remedies & compliance
Track remedies from pending to applied, and report contract compliance on a fixed cadence.
Unforgeable record
Every entry is sealed in an append-only ledger designed to hold up under legal and audit scrutiny.
Obligations Notices Acknowledgements Maintenance windows Breaches Exclusions Remedies Disputes Resolutions Audit exports
The current gap
Agreements are static. Service relationships are not.
The agreement says what should happen. Production systems show what actually happened. Most enterprises still connect the two by hand, after an incident, when the relationship is already under legal and commercial stress.
- Evidence has no legal standing Dashboards and log exports are easy to dispute because each side produces its own version of the same event.
- Notices are hard to prove Maintenance, deprecation, and migration notices need durable delivery and acknowledgement records tied to the agreement.
- Breaches surface too late By the time a breach is recognized, the notice window has often closed and the remedy is no longer available.
- Remedies go unclaimed Service credits and other remedies depend on exclusions, windows, and timing that are rarely evidenced well enough to claim.
How it works
From agreement terms to enforceable evidence
-
Map counterparties
Onboard every provider and client, and the service relationships that connect them to your business.
-
Model agreements
Encode service agreements, the SLAs under each contract, exclusions, notice periods, and remedy terms.
-
Mirror telemetry
Stream OpenTelemetry traces, metrics, and operational events from one or both sides through existing collectors.
-
Operate the relationship
Run maintenance calendars, on-call rotations, war rooms, and breach alerts against live obligations.
-
Settle and report
Record breaches, drive remedies to applied, and publish daily, weekly, monthly, and annual compliance reports.
Differentiation
Not observability. Not a contract repository. Not a ticket queue.
Not a monitoring replacement
Observability shows behavior. Trust GTW turns behavior into legal evidence bound to an agreement.
Not a contract repository
Storing the PDF is not compliance. Obligations, breaches, remedies, and deadlines stay connected and live.
Not one side's version
Evidence is reconciled between counterparties and sealed, so neither side can rewrite the record.
Platform
Everything a service agreement needs, in one record
Each customer runs their full counterparty landscape in Trust GTW — every provider, every client, every agreement, and the operational surface that keeps them enforceable.
Counterparties & agreements
Who you are contractually exposed to, and on what terms.
Providers
Every upstream provider you depend on, with the obligations they owe you and their live compliance posture.
Clients
Every downstream client you serve, with the obligations you owe them and your exposure under each agreement.
Service agreements & SLAs
All service agreements, and all SLAs under each SA contract, with thresholds, exclusions, notice periods, and remedy terms.
Live operations
The day-to-day surface that keeps obligations enforceable in real time.
Scheduled maintenance calendar
Planned windows across all counterparties, with notices, acknowledgements, and the traffic each window affects.
On-call support for war rooms
On-call rotations and live war rooms that keep incident response tied to the obligations in play.
Breach alerts
Breach detection backed by neutral evidence from both sides, raised while the notice window is still open.
Accountability & reporting
What happens after a breach, and what you can prove at the end of the period.
Remedies
Every remedy tracked from pending to applied, with the evidence and agreement clause behind it.
Reports
Daily, weekly, monthly, and annual contract compliance reporting for legal, finance, and audit.
Integration
OTel-first, and nothing in your traffic path
Trust GTW integrates through the OpenTelemetry pipeline your platform teams already run. Service traffic stays direct between counterparties. Trust GTW never becomes a dependency of a production request, and there is no proxy, sidecar, or interception layer to deploy.
No traffic-path dependency
Requests never transit Trust GTW, so onboarding carries no availability risk.
Native collector pipeline
Point an existing OTel Collector exporter at Trust GTW and start producing evidence.
Neutral reconciliation
Client-side and provider-side views of the same event are matched, so neither side owns the record.
Contract-aware from ingest
Spans and events are evaluated against the SLA, exclusions, and notices at ingest, not months later.
Two-sided evidence
Recommended Both counterparties mirror telemetry Strongest, reconciled evidentiary position
Client-side evidence
Starting point Client telemetry only Provider may contest attribution
Provider-side evidence
Starting point Provider telemetry only Client may contest completeness
Two-sided evidence
Both counterparties mirror telemetry into Trust GTW. Strongest evidentiary position for breaches, remedies, and disputes.
- Best for
- Agreements under active dispute pressure or high exposure.
- Main trade-off
- Both sides must participate.
What this records
- Both counterparties mirror telemetry into Trust GTW
- Strongest evidentiary position for breaches, remedies, and disputes
- Requires agreement from both sides
Client-side evidence
Only the client mirrors telemetry. Independent record of provider performance and incident history.
- Best for
- Clients holding provider SLAs.
- Main trade-off
- Provider may contest attribution of a failure.
What this records
- Only the client mirrors telemetry
- Independent record of provider performance and incident history
- Provider may contest attribution of a failure
Provider-side evidence
Only the provider mirrors telemetry. Proof of delivered performance, notices, and out-of-contract traffic.
- Best for
- Providers defending customer SLAs.
- Main trade-off
- Client may contest completeness of the record.
What this records
- Only the provider mirrors telemetry
- Proof of delivered performance, notices, and out-of-contract traffic
- Client may contest completeness of the record
Compare evidence configurations
| Capability | Two-sided | Client-side | Provider-side |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recommended path | Yes | Starting point for clients | Starting point for providers |
| Traffic path | Direct counterparty traffic | Direct counterparty traffic | Direct counterparty traffic |
| Availability risk from Trust GTW | None | None | None |
| Evidence sources | Client and provider telemetry | Client telemetry only | Provider telemetry only |
| Evidentiary weight | Strongest, reconciled | Strong for the client's position | Strong for the provider's position |
| Breach attribution | Resolved between both views | Contestable by the provider | Contestable by the client |
| Onboarding effort | Both sides must participate | One side, one exporter | One side, one exporter |
| Best fit | Agreements under active dispute pressure or high exposure | Clients holding provider SLAs | Providers defending customer SLAs |
Neutrality
Built to protect both sides
As a client
- Independent performance evidence
- Notice and maintenance history
- Remedies before the window closes
- Clearer vendor escalation
Trust GTW Neutral ledger Evidence, remedies, deadlines
As a provider
- Invalid claims filtered
- Notices and exclusions proven
- Out-of-contract traffic evidenced
- Transparent customer trust
As a client
- Independent evidence of provider performance
- Complete incident, maintenance, and notice history
- Remedies claimed before the window closes
- Less ambiguity when escalating with a vendor
As a provider
- Protection against invalid or inflated claims
- Proof of notices, acknowledgements, and exclusions
- Evidence of out-of-contract traffic and misuse
- Customer trust through transparent accountability
Security & privacy
Evidence that cannot be rewritten, and privacy that still holds
Legal evidence is only useful if it is provably untouched. Trust GTW is built on a ledger architecture that makes every entry verifiable, while keeping personal data erasable.
Ledger security architecture
Entries are append-only and cryptographically chained, so any alteration or omission is detectable.
Unforgeable evidence
Each record carries an integrity hash linked to the entry before it, producing a verifiable chain of custody.
Crypto-shredding support
Personal data is encrypted with per-subject keys. Destroying a key erases the data while the chain stays verifiable.
GDPR compliance
Data-subject rights, retention limits, and lawful processing are designed into the record, not bolted on.
Product preview
One shared record for legal, platform, and commercial teams
Agreement workspace
Enterprise Payments Services Agreement
Active
SLA performance (Availability) 30 days
Compliant At risk Breach Excluded
Agreement summary
- Effective
- Jan 1, 2026
- Renewal
- Dec 31, 2026
- Scope
- /payments/*
- Governing terms
- v2.3
- Notice period
- 5 business days
Recent events Shared contractual timeline
- Client telemetry ingested Timeout spans received from checkout service
- Provider telemetry ingested 503 responses linked to payments platform
- Views reconciled Client timeout matched to provider 503
- Exclusion evaluated Scheduled maintenance window did not apply
- Breach recorded Availability SLA missed for 42 minutes
- Remedy pending Service credit calculated under clause 7.2
Ledger integrity
- Evidence hash
- 8f4a...c21
- Previous entry linked
- Yes
- Chain status
- Intact
- Personal data
- Crypto-shreddable
Remedy status
- Status
- Pending application
- Claim
- Availability breach
- Counterparty position
- Reviewing exclusion
- Remedy
- Service credit, clause 7.2
- Deadline
- 5 business days remaining
Use cases
Where service agreements carry real legal exposure
Payments & fintech
Evidence availability, latency, and incident timelines where failed calls create direct revenue, reconciliation, or regulatory impact.
Logistics & supply chain
Hold carrier, warehouse, and routing obligations to the agreement when missed updates break fulfillment commitments.
Marketplaces & platforms
Maintain a neutral record between platform, sellers, partners, and payment providers when service issues hit orders or payouts.
Enterprise SaaS
Support customer-facing SLAs, deprecation programs, and escalations with evidence legal, success, and support teams can share.
Data providers
Evidence feed availability, freshness, quotas, schema changes, and delivery windows under commercial data agreements.
Regulated industries
Keep auditable timelines of notices, acknowledgements, exclusions, breaches, and remedies for compliance and supervisory review.
Design partner fit
Who we want to talk to
Legal and legal operations leaders
You own service agreements, breach positions, and remedy claims, but depend on engineering to prove what happened.
Vendor management and procurement teams
You run renewals, credits, and escalations, and need operational evidence that survives dispute pressure.
Platform, SRE, and infrastructure leaders
You own availability, latency, and incident history, and already run OpenTelemetry across the estate.
Enterprise operators with two-way exposure
Your company is both client and provider across critical service agreements, in fintech, logistics, marketplaces, SaaS, or data.
Private design partners
Have a service agreement worth proving?
We are looking for design partners with real contractual pain: disputed SLAs, unclear maintenance communication, deprecation conflicts, unclaimed remedies, or accountability gaps with a critical provider or client.
No sales automation. We are looking for real legal and operational stories.
Best fit: large enterprises in fintech, payments, logistics, marketplaces, enterprise SaaS, and data services, with existing OpenTelemetry infrastructure.
Having trouble loading the form? Open it directly.