Existing printer
Mug printing
€4.00 per mug. Printing payments count towards the weekly minimum.
Minimum and notice
The minimum is €180 a week. It remains payable for twelve weeks after written notice, including weeks with no orders.
Where AI helps in Lucid.
A cheaper printer. Several agreements to check. Follow Ströma Prints as it considers changing partners, and see where AI could help it understand what stays owed and what signing would add.
Ströma Prints and these terms are made up. This is a scripted illustration of a proposed workflow.
- Built
- Code that adds up recorded payments, with tests.
- Planned
- AI to select a written question, point to passages and explain a result.
- Exploring
- Checking a proposed agreement alongside signed ones, and how changes between agreements would be recorded.
Would changing printers actually save money?
One decision, an unsigned proposal and two existing agreements. The steps below illustrate a workflow still being designed.
Start with the decision.
Ströma Prints sells mugs and t-shirts. Another printer quotes less for each mug. The shop is considering moving its next orders immediately. It already has a printing agreement and a separate fulfilment agreement.
Signed
Existing printer
Minimum payments continue after notice.
Unsigned proposal
Proposed printer
A lower print price, with a setup fee and a new minimum.
Signed
Fulfilment partner
A separate minimum, plus packing and delivery charges.
Your words
Would moving our printing actually save us money?
The proposal is available to inspect. It has not been signed or added to the financial record.
A narrower, written question
Should I sign this supplier minimum?
Subject: the proposed printer. This check would show what signing adds beside what is already owed. It would not predict savings or decide whether to switch.
Check the selected question and subject. The original question asks more than this check can answer.
Outside this check
“Will the new printer make our shop more profitable?” has no answer here. Future orders and profit are not supplied by the model.
What this illustration assumes
The question comes from Lucid's written design. The proposed printer is a named subject in this example. The product still needs rules for handling an unsigned proposal alongside signed agreements.
The model may select a written question and subject. It cannot compose a new question or widen what the selected check answers.
Read across the agreements.
The print price sits in one clause. The payments that survive the change sit elsewhere. AI could point to those passages; a person still reads the documents and records the terms.
Proposed printer
Mug printing
€3.50 per mug. Printing payments count towards the weekly minimum. Packing and delivery are excluded.
Starting the agreement
A non-refundable setup fee of €300, plus a minimum of €150 a week for eight weeks. These terms would bind the shop only on signing.
Fulfilment partner
Remaining fixed term
The shop owes a service minimum of €60 a week for the six weeks left in this agreement, whichever printer it uses.
Packing and delivery
Packing and delivery are charged in addition to the minimum. This agreement sets no overall limit on those charges.
Illustrated AI selection
Places to start reading across the documents.
The selection points to notice payments, the proposed minimum and the separate fulfilment charges.
A selection is not a completeness check. All the excerpts stay available when AI misses a clause.
These are invented excerpts for the example. Real agreements may contain other relevant clauses or signed changes.
What happens before a calculation
A person reads the agreements and enters each amount, payment period and whether further charges are possible. The next step shows an illustrative record after that work. Choosing a passage above does not fill or edit it.
A person can miss a clause too. Keeping documents visible helps inspection; it does not guarantee that a record is complete.
Keep the existing bills beside the proposal.
These example terms were entered by a person. The calculations below count minimum payments only. Per-item charges and further services may add to them.
Already signed
Moving orders does not erase either agreement.
€2,160Minimum payments still owed
€360Service minimum still owed
Only if the new proposal is signed
This amount has not been committed or added to the record of signed agreements.
€1,500Setup and minimum payments
What these amounts leave open
Packing and delivery have no overall contractual limit here. The printing amounts are minimums, not a ceiling on orders placed.
Read the extra-charge clauseThe lower print price does not establish an overall saving. No fixed maximum for the whole change is shown.
Illustrated AI explanation
The current printer's notice payments remain due. The proposed agreement would add a setup fee and minimum payments. The separate fulfilment charges remain open.
Check each part against its source: existing printer, proposal, fulfilment.
A lower per-item price and a smaller total commitment are different claims. This example establishes the recorded minimums and the gaps; it does not forecast future orders or savings.
What this result does and does not establish
The amounts are calculated from authored example terms. No model reads the figures, changes them or supplies the result. The proposal remains separate from signed commitments in every state.
These separate minimums are not added into a Maximum Loss. The example does not establish independence between exposures, a bound on all charges, or whether the shop has enough money to make the change.
Resolve the open terms before deciding.
The shop can see why the cheaper print price is not enough to decide. It still needs the full cost of the change and a check against the money it must keep.
What needs attention
- The existing printer's notice payments overlap with the proposed commitment.
- The fulfilment agreement continues separately, with additional charges that have no overall limit.
- Any shorter notice or fixed-total replacement terms would have to be agreed and signed.
Where AI could help
- Point back to the clauses behind each finding.
- Explain what the recorded terms and calculations show.
- Explain why the check cannot give a complete cost or approve the switch.
The person decides what to pursue. AI has not selected a partner or approved spending.
A useful next step is to ask for complete packing and delivery terms, and explore whether the existing printer will shorten its notice. Those possibilities are written into this example; they are not new actions generated by AI.
What still needs to be built
The arithmetic in this illustration runs on fixed example terms. The proposed workflow across signed agreements and an unsigned proposal still needs its record types, written questions and checks specified and implemented.
A real approval would also need recorded cash, the person's chosen minimum to keep, and all applicable commitment and reversibility checks. This page makes no approval and changes no financial record.
Next: read the agreements
What AI may contribute
- A question and subject picked from an existing list.
- A place to start reading in an agreement.
- An explanation of an existing result.
AI may describe the record. It never writes to it.
- A person reads the agreement.
- They enter its facts.
- Code does the sums or shows there is no fixed maximum.
- The result stays visible without AI.
The record and the result
What could you change?
Start with agreements already in your records. We are also exploring small trials and when to put more behind one.
Showing Stop the bleed examples
Stop the bleed: end a cost or fix its limit.
Changes to things already in the records.
End an add-on you no longer use.
Read the cancellation terms. Ending a service does not erase what you still owe.
Seek a storage agreement with a fixed total.
The current terms allow extra charges. New terms could fix the total you owe. You would read and record the signed change.
AI may find terms and explain the result. Any proposed change must come from recorded facts.
Test: a small try with a fixed limit.
Choosing a budget does not stop further bills.
Try existing designs on mugs made per order.
Use existing designs on mugs from a supplier's catalogue. Check the terms for samples, listings and any other costs.
One requirement: terms that fix the most the trial can cost, recorded before you start.
Try a listing on another sales channel.
Check listing fees, delivery costs and any advertising you agree to pay for.
One requirement: a fixed limit on what you could owe, including any extra charges.
AI's role in finding new actions is undecided. Its guesses about costs or sales cannot set the limit.
Scale: when each extra step brings a bigger gain.
More sales alone are not enough.
Put more behind the hoodie trial.
The records must show that equal increases in what you put in bring larger and larger gains.
Required: that pattern of gain, plus a fixed limit on what the next step can cost.
A profitable mug trial would not be enough.
A profit or a good fortnight does not show that pattern. The person running the trial must judge the result; time alone cannot decide it.
AI cannot establish that pattern or approve more spending.
Refused, with the reason.
A refusal must say what prevents an answer.
Work out an insurance price from the odds of a supplier failing.
If the answer needs odds for a rare event, Lucid gives no verdict. You can still read the insurance terms and price.
Pick a supplier on a difference too small to act on.
You set the smallest difference in weeks of cover that matters to you. If the suppliers differ by less than that, neither is picked. AI does not break the tie.
Code gives the refusal and the reason. AI may explain them.
Could AI help find new actions?
AI cannot create actions in the current design. We are still exploring whether combining existing records could reveal new choices.
Tests with sellers will help answer that. Passing a cost check alone does not make an action worth showing.
These rules apply to AI in this decision process.