Free tool · for founders

Should you sign that build scope?

Paste or upload the statement of work before you sign it. The Scope prices the phase in per cent of your company, hunts the text for the decisions nobody closed, and tests every deliverable for evidence. Then it gives you a verdict: Build, Amend, or Can It. Two minutes, no sign-up.

The Scope is a free build-contract auditor you run in your browser. It does the three checks from The Read N°61 in one pass: the arithmetic that converts the invoice into equity, the hunt for "both", "for now", "TBD" and every other unclosed decision, and the O and E test that asks whether the deliverables are outputs you will own or evidence a user will have generated. The tool proposes, you decide: every automated pass is editable. It works on whatever the supplier sent you: a formal SOW, a proposal PDF, a quote, or the email thread. Nothing you paste or upload leaves your device, which matters when the document is a live commercial contract. These are the basic checks, and they catch the expensive mistakes. When the contract is big enough to deserve a human, send us the statement of work and we'll review it properly: the offer is at the bottom of your results.

1The numbersThe phase, priced honestly

Phase cost

The build phase you are about to sign. One total quote, no phases? Use that. Type 180k or 1.2m if quicker.

Amount raised

The round this money comes from, closed or planned.

Pre-money valuation

Not priced yet? Leave blank and we'll show a typical range instead.

Enter the numbers and the phase gets priced in the unit that does not lie: what it really costs the company.

2The scopePaste it or upload it

Analysed in your browser. The document never leaves this page.

3Unclosed decisionsThe "both" hunt

Every both, for now, TBD and we'll decide later is a decision someone deferred. Mark each one closed only if it has a written answer today. Hard deferrals (solid tags) carry full weight in the score; soft qualifiers like optional and subject to (outlined tags) carry half, because some of them are just how contracts talk. An open decision upstream becomes a change request downstream, and the invoice prices the consequence, never the cause.

4The O and E testOutputs vs evidence

O is an output: a thing that will exist because you paid for it. E is evidence: a thing a real user will have done that you could show an investor. "Onboarding flow" is an O. "Ten target users complete onboarding unaided" is an E. The suggestions are a starting point; correct them, then count the E's.

5The two questionsOwnership

By the end of this phase, what will a real user have done that they could not do before? Is that written in the scope, as a deliverable?

Who on your side owns the decisions this phase depends on? A named person with the time and authority to close them, not the supplier.

The verdict

– /100

Run the checks

Phase in equity

–

Open decisions

–

Evidence on the page

–

Ownership

–

This is the basic check, run on the text alone. For a signature this size, have a human read the actual contract.

How to read it: the score weighs evidence heaviest (40 points), then open decisions (30), the phase's cost weight (20) and ownership (10). The cost weight follows your funding: raised money is scored in per cent of the company, bootstrapped money in per cent of the cash you hold, and if you are raising but the round is not priced yet, the audit scores conservatively against the top of a typical UK pre-seed range. Open decisions are weighted: hard deferrals like "both" and "TBD" cost full points, soft qualifiers like "optional" and "subject to" cost half, because some of them are just how contracts talk. Two gates no arithmetic can override: a scope with no E on the page can never score better than Amend, and no E plus a heavy load of open decisions is an automatic Can It. Build means sign it: evidence is on the page, the decisions are closed, the per cent is defensible. Amend means the scope is fixable before signature: close the open decisions, convert at least one deliverable to evidence, or renegotiate the phase size. Can It means do not sign this version: you would be selling equity for a list of outputs with the expensive questions still open. The argument in full is in N°61, what your build actually cost you, and the per cent mechanics are in The Round. One more honest line: this is a product audit, not legal advice. Have a lawyer read the contract terms; have this read what the contract builds.

That was the basic check. Want the full review?

The Scope catches what a text scan can catch. A full review is a senior product operator reading the actual document: the commercials, the phase sequencing, the acceptance criteria, what is missing entirely, and the specific amendments to ask for before you sign. Your scope text is already filled in below, so one click sends everything we need to start. If the original file matters (tables, diagrams, tracked changes), attach it when we reply, or send it to hello@productpieces.io.

Your name *

Email *

Startup name *

Stage

Your scope, sent with the request

Prefilled from your analysis so you don't have to send it separately. Edit it, or clear it if you'd rather we only see the audit numbers.

Anything about the build we should know? (optional)

Send me The Read, our roughly-monthly product newsletter. Unsubscribe any time.

We'll only use this to arrange the review and, if it's a fit, to reach out. Only what is in this form is sent; clear the scope box above if you'd rather we saw the audit numbers alone. See our privacy policy.

Next, from your result

What does the whole raise cost?

The Scope prices one phase. The Round prices the round it came from, in ownership.

The Round →

The argument in full

Why per cent is the honest unit, where it leaks, and what the 2026 bar asks your equity to buy.

Read N°61 →

Once the build starts

The three-month rule keeps the per cent honest: nothing runs past three months without a real user.

Read N°60 →

About this tool

What The Scope does.

Paste or upload a statement of work and it runs three checks. The arithmetic: the phase cost converted into a share of the company, and what that same slice would be worth at a later round. The unclosed decisions: every "both", "for now", "TBD" and "subject to" pulled out in context, because an open question upstream becomes a change request downstream. And the O and E test: every deliverable marked Output, a thing you will own, or Evidence, a thing a real user will have done. It scores out of a hundred and gives a verdict of Build, Amend or Can It, with a one-page audit you can take into the meeting.

Who it is for. Any founder about to sign an outsourced build, particularly a non-technical one with nobody senior on their side of the table.

What it will not do. It is not legal review and it does not judge the supplier. A good build partner held to account is a weapon. What the audit tests is whether the document you are about to sign is accountable, which is a different question from whether the team is good. Nothing you paste leaves your browser.

Does my contract get uploaded anywhere?

No. The document is read locally in your browser and never sent to a server. Close the tab and it is gone.

What makes a statement of work fail the audit?

Two hard gates. No Evidence anywhere on the page caps the verdict at Amend, and no Evidence alongside three or more open decisions forces Can It. A build that cannot produce one thing a real user did cannot produce what the next round asks for.

Why does the word "both" matter?

Because it is an unclosed decision wearing a deliverable's clothes. The plan quietly serves two audiences, every choice downstream hedges, and months later the answer arrives as a change request that is correctly priced and entirely avoidable.

Already signed and building? The Scope reads the contract. The Build Assurance Review reads the build: two weeks, from £6,000, a red, amber, green verdict across scope, pace, quality and spend.

Product Pieces · Senior product, by the piece. productpieces.io