Why our prices are published as hypotheses

The product plan uses $49 per month for Workspace and $99 per month for Team as validation prices. They are not proof of willingness to pay, profitability or a live paid beta. Before payment is collected, the site must say plainly what is available and what is still preview.

Publishing the numbers helps buyers understand the intended scale of the offer. It also prevents a fake enterprise mystery price from hiding whether a modest self-service subscription can work.

The price only means something with visible limits: internal users, active agreements, AI allowance, processed pages, storage, reminders during the service term and export behaviour. A lower price with unclear limits is not clearer than a higher price.

The active-agreement cap also needs a visible counting rule. Amendments attached to the same agreement should not consume a new slot, but separately tracked agreements may. Buyers should see that before importing.

The plan records annual equivalents as a possible later experiment, not as a Phase 1 offer. Monthly billing is cleaner for early validation because retention and self-service exit are part of the evidence.

A discounted annual prepay can improve cash flow while hiding weak ongoing usefulness. That is why it should wait for retention evidence rather than becoming the default launch plan.

If staff guide setup, clean files, enter data, run a migration or close the purchase, that account is assisted for measurement. Good help is allowed. It just cannot be counted as proof that the product activated or sold itself.

Self-service exit matters for the same reason. A buyer should be able to cancel and export without a call, and the service end should be stated precisely. That is part of trust, not a retention trick.

This post does not announce live billing, discounts, annual plans, revenue metrics or customer results. It explains why the intended $49 and $99 monthly prices are shown with limits while the offer is still being validated.