Skip to main contentMain content

Boardroom Answers · Revenue & Global · Enterprise Integration & Interoperability

You are a single-founder, pre-revenue vendor. If Vouli IQ shuts down in eighteen months, what happens to my board’s decision history? Walk me through my exit, because I underwrite that before I underwrite your features?

The question a VP of Enterprise Architecture (Buy-side) asks.

The short answer

Your exit is engineered: PDF/Word/PPTX export and full API read access, so a current copy can live in YOUR infrastructure. Boring portable stack, never-pruned tenant data. Escrow and wind-down terms: co-authored with the first design partner.

The full executive answer

You should underwrite it, and here is the exit path as it exists in shipped code rather than contract promises. Egress: your artifacts export to PDF, Word and PPTX; the API and SDKs give programmatic read access to scorecards, roadmaps, risks, compliance posture and score history; and nothing stops your team pulling a copy into infrastructure you own on a schedule you choose — the strongest continuity control available today, because on our worst day your copy is as current as your last pull. What does not exist yet is a continuous replication feed run by us. Data protection in life, not just death: tenant data is classified never-auto-pruned in our retention policy, deletion happens only through the explicit GDPR-style erasure path, and audit logs are append-only.

On the vendor-risk fundamentals: the stack is deliberately boring and portable — Postgres on Supabase, standard Next.js on Vercel, no proprietary data formats; a wind-down would leave you with SQL-shaped data, not a hostage format. What I do not yet offer, honestly: a signed source-code escrow arrangement or a contractual wind-down commitment with a defined data-return SLA. Both are reasonable Enterprise asks, both are on the roadmap for the first Enterprise contracts, and frankly the first design partner gets to co-author those terms.

The counterweight to viability risk is cost-of-exit asymmetry: our no-implementation-fee, cancel-any-time model at the lower tiers, plus full export and API read access, means the blast radius of betting on us is bounded and measurable — compare that to the seven-figure sunk implementation cost of the incumbent GRC suites, where vendor risk is lower but exit cost is catastrophic. In a proper vendor-risk-weighted TCO, bounded-exit versus locked-in changes the calculus more than my company’s age does.

Grounded in: Vendor-risk-weighted TCO (exit cost as a first-class term); continuity controls hierarchy — customer-side data replication beats escrow beats contractual promises.

Want this answered live, on your data?