Contract-signatory evidence decision record

Use this contract-signatory evidence decision record when different documents appear to name different contracting entities. It records the proposed entity, source priority and the reviewer’s decision without turning a formula into an authority judgment. Live counts show accepted, conflicting and unresolved documents. The artifact supports the evidence decision before the separate contracting-entity mapping workbook assigns analytical IDs.

What to enter

Enter agreement ID, document reference and date, proposed entity ID, source priority, reviewer, decision date, decision and effective dates. Several evidence rows may belong to one agreement. The sample’s source-priority numbers are recorded inputs for the reviewer, not an automatic ranking algorithm. Store the actual documents in your controlled records and use stable references here.

Use the workbook

1. Collect the relevant dated agreement, amendment and order evidence. Preserve contradictory proposals rather than overwriting the first document.
2. Have the responsible owner record Accepted, Rejected or Unresolved with a decision date. Confirm the rule for source precedence outside the arithmetic.
3. Resolve conflicting Accepted rows before transferring an accepted entity into the analytical mapping. Retain rejected documents so another reviewer can understand the choice.

Keep the amber inputs separate from the pale blue calculation columns. The worksheet has 20 prefilled detail rows, from 13 through 32. If you need more records, extend every affected formula and summary range together, then check a first, middle and final row. Save a dated working copy before replacing the sample.

The synthetic example

AG-01 has one accepted signed agreement naming ENT-01 and one rejected order naming ENT-02. AG-02 remains unresolved. AG-03 has two accepted documents naming different entities, so both rows show Conflicting accepted. The five-document sample therefore has one accepted uncontested document, two conflicting accepted documents and one unresolved document. Rejecting one AG-03 proposal removes its conflict.

How the results update

The status checks required evidence and decision fields, chronological effective dates and the number of Accepted rows for each agreement. More than one Accepted row is a conflict under this sample rule even if a priority number differs. Rejected evidence remains recorded but does not enter the accepted count. This keeps the human decision separate from the formula that reports whether the recorded decision is internally consistent.

Limits and a useful next step

The worksheet does not determine legal authority, enforceability or which document supersedes another. It does not verify a signature or authenticate a document. Different effective periods or multiple authorized parties may require a more detailed agreement/period key and an explicit policy before use. Keep the reviewer’s reasoning and obtain the responsible owner’s interpretation when the records cannot resolve the issue.

For the underlying method, read account hierarchy parents and subsidiaries. sold to bill to ship to covers the adjacent question. If you want to review the required fields and one reporting output, discuss your setup. Views depend on your records and agreed definitions.