The Corridor

A US–India SoW has to account for two legal systems. Most are written for one.

When a US founder hires an Indian dev shop, the SoW is the document that governs everything that follows: what gets built, who owns it, when money moves, what happens when something breaks. It reads fine in English. Then something goes wrong, and the gaps show up: unclear IP-assignment terms, milestones with no staging proof behind them, and payment terms that ignore FEMA and FIRC entirely.

Worql assembles a SoW for the US–India software relationship. In about five minutes.

Failure modes

What actually breaks

The gap isn’t talent. It’s that the contract assumes one jurisdiction while the work happens across two. Three places that fails:

IP ownership left unclear.

A US-drafted assignment clause can assume a domestic relationship. The clause library includes IP-assignment language for the US–India engagement, so the terms are stated alongside the scope and payment arrangement.

Payments that can’t be reconciled.

Net-30 from a US entity to an Indian contractor sounds simple. But the payment clears under FEMA, and the Indian side needs a FIRC to prove it was a legitimate inbound software-export payment. SoWs that ignore this create reconciliation problems months later, usually right when the relationship is otherwise going well. Worql builds the payment and documentation mechanics in from the start.

Milestones that leave room for dispute.

“Milestone 2: backend complete” is ambiguous on its own. Complete by whose definition, demonstrated how? Worql connects milestones to staging evidence and acceptance criteria, with dispute terms stated in the agreement.

The clause set

What’s in the document

A Worql SoW is built from a clause library written for one thing: software work flowing from the US to India. Every SoW includes:

IP-assignment language for the US–India relationship
DPDP-aware data handling where the engagement touches personal data
FEMA-aware payment mechanics with FIRC documentation in mind
W-8BEN-E withholding mechanics in the right place
SIAC arbitration as the default forum
Milestones tied to staging proof and acceptance criteria

Change orders and amendments are supported throughout the engagement workflow.

Method

How it’s built

Worql isn’t a generic template with the country names swapped.

The clause library is corridor-specific and assembled clause by clause for the US–India software relationship, not adapted from a domestic US agreement. The assembly runs through a multi-stage pipeline so the output is a coherent contract, not a pile of stitched-together paragraphs.

Each assembled SoW is designed for review by the parties and their counsel before signing.

Origin

Who built it

Built by someone who has sat on both sides.

Worql was built by Aayush Chopra, who has hired offshore engineering teams from the US and run engineering from inside India. The clause library is the contract he wishes someone had handed him on day one. That’s the whole reason the document treats both jurisdictions as real instead of pretending one of them doesn’t exist.

Direction

Where this is going

Today Worql assembles SoWs. The longer aim is to become trust and compliance infrastructure for the US–India software corridor: verified counterparties, milestone escrow, and the financial layer that sits on top. That’s the direction. The SoW is the start.

Create an account Email me