What is this?
A subscription tool for vendor managers and operations leads at 100-500 person companies who depend on 5-15 critical SaaS vendors (payments, auth, data infra, AI APIs). After each vendor-caused incident, the vendor sends a postmortem with forward-looking remediation commitments: 'we will add region failover by Q3', 'we will publish error-budget burn alerts', 'we will retest under load monthly'. The vendor manager logs each commitment (one line, ~3 min per postmortem — net-new data, no existing system), tags the failure class, and sets a resolution window. At each window close, AE prompts the manager to confirm: did the vendor ship the remediation AND did the failure class stop recurring against the manager's own uptime telemetry. AE's 6-pattern autopsy taxonomy fits natively — Concession Laundering ('they shipped a status-page change, not failover'), Cosmetic Confidence ('the metric they added does not measure the failure class'), Epistemological Shielding ('vendor blamed our config instead of owning'). Output: a quarterly vendor-trustworthiness scorecard graded against reality, used at renewal negotiations and tier-downgrade decisions. Buyer has direct financial leverage (renewal budget) and strong honesty incentive (their CFO sees the same incidents).
Why did we consider it?
Vendor remediation commitments are AE's ideal substrate — falsifiable, time-boxed, reality-graded by the buyer's own telemetry — and feed directly into renewal negotiations where a single tier downgrade pays for years of subscription.
No external evidence collected yet.