Agree on the exceptions, too.

The difficult path belongs in the design.

A useful agreement considers more than a successful delivery. A project can be paused, inputs can arrive late, or the parties can disagree about whether a deliverable matches the scope.

FOLIO does not currently resolve disputes or enforce payment conditions. This guide describes the questions that the planned protocol needs to address before handling real agreements.

Separate a revision from new work.

A revision brings a delivery closer to the agreed outcome. A scope change asks for a different or additional outcome. Calling both a revision can obscure a change in cost or timing.

Questions to settle together.

• What evidence or files count as a submission?
• How long does the review period last, and when does it begin?
• What happens when one party is unavailable?
• Can an agreement be paused or cancelled, and what happens to unfinished work?
• Who can review a disagreement, and what authority would they have?

A timeout needs an explicit rule.

A deadline passing should not be presented as an automatic decision unless that behavior is explicitly part of the agreement and implemented by its payment system.

FOLIO has not selected a default auto-release, auto-refund or arbitration mechanism. The current delivery window is a planning field; it does not start a countdown that controls funds.

The current boundaries.

The site does not verify identity, accept evidence, appoint a reviewer, issue a ruling or collect signatures. It also does not determine the legal effect of the draft.

For now, the practical output is a shared starting point for discussing the work. Future dispute rules and contract permissions will need their own clear specification rather than being inferred from this interface.