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 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; Enterprise warehouse sync continuously replicates your data into infrastructure you own — which is the strongest continuity control there is, because on our worst day, your copy is already in your warehouse, current as of the last sync. 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 continuous warehouse sync at Enterprise, 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.