You should be able to fire your AI vendor cleanly. So we built the exit before the entrance.

It is the right question, and it should be asked out loud. A system no one can support is a liability, not an asset. The fear is rational. Most vendors dodge it with a handshake and a promise that they are not going anywhere.

That answer is not good enough, because it depends on the one thing you cannot verify: that a single person stays reachable forever. So Heed does not sell single point of failure dependencies. Support is contractual. Documentation is complete. Ownership has a defined path. The model that built your system is never the only thing keeping it alive.

A continuity clause that hands you an undocumented codebase hands you a second problem, not a solution. So every Heed build ships with architecture diagrams, operational runbooks, and decision logs, written as the system is built, not bolted on after. That documentation is what makes escrow meaningful and ownership transfer clean.

It is also the standard expected under ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF, the same compliance posture applied across every engagement. The dependency concern dissolves when the knowledge lives in the documentation, not in one person's head. That is the difference between a system you can run and a system you merely possess.

Ownership transfer is a feature, not a failure. A vendor confident in the work hands you the keys without flinching, because the relationship continues on merit rather than on lock in. Optionality is what closes the deal. When the client controls the exit, the dependency stops being a risk and becomes a choice.

That is the whole point of this policy. You are never locked in. You are never stranded. The question that kills most custom AI deals is answered here in structure, before you sign anything.