A partnership is built on a written scope not on a logo on a page

We publish no such description unless there is a written agreement, permission to publish and a scope we can show. We do not grant ourselves the title of “certified partner”, “agent” or “reseller”, and we do not ask any company for a badge to hang on the page. Until something documents it, we describe the relationship precisely: “implemented integration” or “joint work”, with no logo and no title. If you are shown many logos with no inspectable trace behind them, the question is not hostile but practical: where is the agreement, and what is its scope?

With four conditions together: a written agreement defining the scope, explicit permission to publish from the other party, a scope we can show (what was implemented and what is excluded), and an update when the relationship ends so the mark is removed in its time rather than lingering as a trace of a finished relationship. If one condition is missing, we publish neither name nor logo — which is why this page has no logo wall: not because we work with nobody, but because we announce only what can be evidenced.

With two clear limits: we do not approach a partner’s clients for direct work, and we do not make anyone working with them an offer that pulls them out of that relationship — written into the agreement rather than left to intentions. In joint work there is one point of contact with the client: whoever owns the relationship leads the communication, and the other works within their scope and delivers through them, so the client does not hear two conflicting messages and work is not done twice.

No partner logos without permission, no client names, no “certified partner”, “authorised reseller” or “strategic partner” descriptions, no certificates or accreditations we do not hold, no promises of exclusivity or price advantage, and no market-size or target figures. What we publish instead: the partnership types, the rule we follow, what we look for in a partner, our own obligations and the application path — all inspectable, because they describe how we work rather than whom we know.

For two reasons: publishing a company’s mark requires written permission and a scope we can show, and a logo wall proves nothing — whereas a scope and a working system can be inspected. So instead of logos we present the partnership types, the rule we follow, what we look for in a partner and our own obligations. If someone wants to verify a specific relationship, we show what can be shown of the agreement and its scope once the other party agrees.

Often yes, and we promise no implied exclusivity. We say this plainly because open-ended exclusivity binds both sides for nothing: whoever wants exclusivity asks for it with a written scope and duration, matched by a commitment from us — otherwise it is a promise not worth making. Within a joint project, however, we respect one point of contact and make no direct offer to their client.

It ends with written notice per the agreement, and on exit we hand over: the documentation and access belonging to the shared scope, any remaining obligation towards the end client within what the agreement states, and any published mark is removed in its time. If ongoing work is involved, an orderly transition is agreed rather than a cut, because an abrupt stop harms the client first — the last thing we want a partnership to cause.