Whitepaper/Subsurface AI
Most accounts of an AI engagement are told through the model. The document that decides whether the operator ends up owning a capability or renting a dependency is the contract, and on a programme that runs across years it is not one contract but two: the founding research-service agreement and the year-two services agreement that follows. We read both, from a subsurface-AI programme built for a major operator in Oman on borehole-image logs from a fractured carbonate reservoir, as one design discipline whose object is a clean exit. Four levers carry that discipline. The obligation is written as effort, not a warranted result, on genuinely uncertain research. The foreground intellectual property is split 51 to the operator and 49 to the vendor, the smallest majority that still hands the operator control while leaving the vendor free to keep improving its own methods. A funded year-two agreement, USD 313,000 over twelve months, buys a handover rather than a subscription: six live training sessions, three online and three onsite, archived on a learning system, plus run-manage-operate and continuing engineering. And the money moves on a cadence that rewards transfer, five phase-gated tranches summing to USD 345,581.60 in year one, then a flat run-out in year two. A fifth structural move keeps the design clean: the academic partner's research is carved to a separate agreement so it does not entangle the operator's holdings. The two prior chapters of this programme, one reading the year-one paperwork as risk transfer and one reading the year-two agreement as a handover, are pointers here rather than re-derivations; the subject of this piece is the doctrine that spans both, and the argument that a vendor which designs its own replaceability into the contract is the one worth signing. Three interactive instruments make the case concrete.
Tarry SinghFounder & CEO