Before marking the engagement ready, compare the actual documents and ask for the correction that resolves the mismatch. A signature, a recent date and an encouraging email are different pieces of evidence; none tells you, on its own, that both parties are describing the same work.
This guide offers an original commercial coordination aid. It does not determine which document has legal effect. If that is in question, use the appropriate contract-review route before making a commitment based on your own interpretation.
Identify the documents before comparing the promises
Open the returned attachment rather than relying on its email filename. Record its identifier, version, date and the signature or approval you can actually see. Do the same for the fee proposal, including any scope reference inside it.
Keep the received copies. Renaming an old file “final” does not explain what the client has agreed, and silently editing the signed copy would obscure the discrepancy you need to resolve.
The following case, people, document identifiers, dates and amounts are entirely fictional. The fees illustrate a document mismatch, not a market price or a recommended discount.
Cedar Advisory has discussed a supplier-onboarding review with Hartwell Services. After discussing a narrower assignment, Cedar sent a revised fee proposal. Hartwell then returned an older scope with a client signature and asked Cedar to proceed at the revised price.
The document record reads:
| Record | Contents and observed status |
|---|---|
| Scope SC-12, version 1, dated 17 October | Two onboarding workflows, four interviews, a recommendation and a team workshop; two consolidated review rounds. References fee proposal FP-12 version 1. Client signature dated 23 October is present. |
| Fee proposal FP-12, version 1, dated 17 October | £2,400 for the wider assignment in SC-12 version 1. Retained as the earlier proposal. |
| Fee proposal FP-12, version 3, dated 22 October | £1,800 for one workflow, two interviews, a recommendation and one 45-minute review call; one consolidated review round. Still references SC-12 version 1. No approval of this version has been recorded. |
| Client email, 23 October | “Signed scope attached. Please go ahead at the new price.” It does not name the fee-proposal version or explain which deliverables the client expects. |
That last email makes the mismatch worth clarifying. It does not prove that the client has chosen the smaller assignment.
Complete a reconciliation record, not another sales pitch
Hartwell confirms that Nora, its operations lead, can decide the required deliverables. Its finance director, Leon, approves the fee and purchase documents. Priya, Cedar's engagement lead, prepares corrections and completes Cedar's usual engagement review. These roles are supplied by the fictional case; a job title alone would not establish them.
If the proposed work includes fractional operating leadership, use the three-decision mandate matrix to clarify what the leader may decide, what the client retains and what happens while approval is pending.
Priya compares the returned scope with the latest fee proposal:
| Purchase item | SC-12 v1, 17 October; client signature present | FP-12 v3, 22 October; approval unrecorded | Mismatch | Correction or confirmation and owner | Readiness disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workflow coverage | Two workflows | One workflow | Different coverage | Nora to confirm whether the intended purchase covers one or two workflows; Priya to reflect that decision in both documents | HOLD: coverage unresolved |
| Interviews | Four | Two | Different interview allowance | Nora to confirm the intended allowance with the selected coverage; Priya to align the scope and fee description | HOLD: work quantity unresolved |
| Final interaction | Team workshop | One 45-minute review call | Different output and participation | Nora to confirm the required interaction; Priya to record its format consistently | HOLD: output unresolved |
| Included corrections | Two consolidated rounds | One consolidated round | Different review allowance | Nora to confirm the intended allowance; Priya to carry it into both documents | HOLD: review boundary unresolved |
| Fee and scope reference | Refers to FP-12 v1, which states £2,400 | States £1,800 but refers to the wider SC-12 v1 | Price and scope references point to different purchases | Priya to issue a consistent document pair after the scope decision; Leon to review the exact fee and references through Hartwell's purchase route | HOLD: purchase record inconsistent |
Every row is on hold for a stated reason. This is Cedar's internal readiness record, not a declaration that a signed obligation can be disregarded. Any question about existing obligations goes through the relevant review route.
Ask the question that resolves the discrepancy
Priya sends a focused clarification to Nora and Leon:
The returned SC-12 version 1 includes two workflows, four interviews, a workshop and two review rounds. FP-12 version 3 quotes £1,800 for one workflow, two interviews, a 45-minute review call and one review round. Which assignment do you intend to purchase? Once you confirm, I will send a consistent scope and fee pair for the required review. We have left our readiness record on hold while we clarify the documents.
The message names the actual difference. It does not accuse the client of asking for free work or assume that the lower fee buys everything in the older scope.
If the client wants the wider assignment, return to the commercial discussion that choice requires. Do not create a new price inside the reconciliation log. If the client cannot yet confirm what it wants, retain the hold and name the next decision owner.
Show what changed before moving the record to ready
In this fictional case, Nora confirms that Hartwell wants the smaller assignment. Priya prepares SC-12 version 2 and FP-12 version 4. Both describe one workflow, two interviews, a recommendation, one 45-minute review call and one consolidated review round at £1,800. Each names the other document's exact identifier and version.
Nora confirms those deliverables. Leon approves the corrected pair through Hartwell's stated purchasing process. Priya completes Cedar's required review and records the confirmations against both versions. The older documents remain in the history, identified as the records that prompted the clarification.
The reconciliation outcome is now READY for the next agreed planning step: the five rows match, the required confirmations are recorded and no unresolved document discrepancy remains in this example. That status describes this coordination check. It does not establish a general rule about contract formation or replace either party's other requirements.
The next task is different: use the kickoff dependency plan to arrange the agreed inputs and work. If a genuinely new deliverable is requested later, use the scope, fee and date decision guide.
Reuse the check on your next returned proposal
Copy this blank record for each material mismatch:
Scope record: [identifier, version, date, observed signature/approval status]
Fee record: [identifier, version, date, observed approval status]
Purchase item: [the same deliverable, allowance, price or reference in both]
Scope wording: [what the scope actually says]
Fee wording: [what the fee proposal actually says]
Mismatch or unknown: [the precise difference or missing confirmation]
Decision owner: [person and confirmed authority for this decision]
Requested correction: [what must be confirmed or amended, and by whom]
Disposition: [HOLD or READY, with the reason and supporting record]
Use HOLD when a material discrepancy or required confirmation remains unresolved. Use READY for this check only when the purchase descriptions align and the stated confirmation route has been completed. Keep other start conditions visible in their own process.
Before your next engagement review, try the record on the returned scope and fee proposal themselves. If you want to discuss applying the aid, contact The Clients Generator team with the page address and an anonymised summary of the mismatch. Keep signed documents and confidential client material in your approved workspace.