The missing context in contracts and why it changes everything

Most contracts record an agreement, but they often miss the story behind the decision. Important context – from the questions a customer asks before signing to the summaries or advice they rely on – is usually left out of the agreement. This missing context can change everything. When people make decisions, they do so with background knowledge, explanations from others, and personal understanding. If that context isn’t captured, it can lead to misunderstandings and disputes later. In this blog, we explore why missing context creates risk for both businesses and consumers, and how i agree is introducing a way to attach that missing context (summaries, Q&A, even video evidence) to contracts so that the full decision-making journey is clear and trusted. We’ll also look at real examples of what happens when context is absent – for instance, when a client uses an AI like ChatGPT for advice – and why it often becomes a case of “who do you believe?” in a dispute. Finally, we’ll discuss how new regulations like the UK’s Consumer Duty are pushing companies (especially in financial and legal sectors) to ensure consumer understanding, and how capturing context can help meet those standards.

What this blog contains:

• Context: the story behind decisions
• Why missing context is risky for both sides
• When context is missing (real examples)
• Consumer Duty and the push for understanding
• i agree: capturing the full decision journey

Context: the story behind decisions

Every agreement a customer signs comes with an unwritten story. Perhaps they had a detailed conversation with a sales agent, received a plain-language summary of the terms, or even asked an AI chatbot to explain the contract. This surrounding information is what we call the “context” of the decision. It’s everything that helped the person understand (or think they understand) what they were agreeing to. Behavioral science in business communication shows that people rely heavily on these cues and explanations. Why? Because traditional contracts are often dense and hard to digest, so people seek simpler ways to grasp the meaning. If a contract is 20 pages of fine print, a customer might skim it and instead depend on a one-page summary or an informal explanation from a friend. In short, decisions don’t happen in a vacuum – they happen with context.

Context is vital because it’s tied to how humans process information. Studies in behavioural science have found that when information is delivered in a more engaging way – for example, spoken aloud or paired with visuals – people understand and remember it better. (This is known as the “production effect”: speaking or hearing information boosts memory compared to just reading silently.) Similarly, if someone receives an easy-to-read summary or a quick Q&A, they’re more likely to feel confident in their decision. All these pieces of context form the story behind the “I agree” click or signature. They answer the crucial questions: Did the person truly understand what they were agreeing to? Were they informed of the key points and risks in a way they could grasp?

The problem is that while the contract captures the final agreement (“Yes, I accept”), it doesn’t capture those contextual elements. The contract document won’t show that the customer watched a 2-minute explainer video or that they asked, “Does this product have any hidden fees?” and got an answer. Traditional agreements focus on the outcome (the consent), not the journey taken to reach that consent. As a result, there’s a gap between what the business thinks it communicated and what the customer actually understood. In the next sections, we’ll see why that gap is dangerous and how missing context can lead to real trouble for both sides.

Why missing context is risky for both sides

Leaving context out of the contract isn’t just a minor oversight – it’s a major risk. For consumers, missing context means they might agree to something without full understanding, which could lead to unpleasant surprises later. For businesses, missing context means lacking proof of what was explained or understood, which can come back to bite them in disputes or regulatory audits. In essence, if a disagreement arises after the contract is signed, both parties are at a disadvantage if they can’t point to the decision-making context.

From the customer’s perspective, a contract without context can feel like a trap. Imagine you sign up for a financial product believing, based on a salesperson’s description, that there are no extra charges – but the fine print (which you didn’t fully absorb) says otherwise. When that fee hits, you feel misled. You might complain, saying “I was told there were no hidden fees!” At that point, it’s your word against whatever is written in the contract. If the context of what you were told isn’t documented, it becomes difficult to prove you were misinformed. This often leads to frustration, complaints, or seeking remedy from regulators or courts. In many industries, especially legal and financial, consumer disputes frequently boil down to “I didn’t realize that’s what I agreed to.” It’s a common refrain when context was lacking and the person genuinely didn’t understand a term or condition.

From the business’s perspective, missing context is equally perilous. A company might think everything was communicated clearly because the information was in the contract or in some brochure. But if the customer skipped over it (as most do) and there’s no record that key points were explained in an understandable way, the company is on shaky ground. Regulators like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have made it clear that simply having terms buried in a document is not enough – firms must ensure the customer actually understood those terms. If a dispute arises, a business that relies only on a signed contract might find that’s not sufficient defense. For example, courts are increasingly considering whether informed consent was present. In one UK case involving a law firm’s contract, a judge noted that mere agreement (a signed contract) did not suffice without the client’s informed consent to the terms – essentially saying the client should have truly understood, not just signed.

The risks of missing context manifest in tangible ways:

• Regulatory action: Regulators may rule that an agreement is unfair or non-compliant if clients were kept in the dark. (Hidden fees or convoluted terms that consumers weren’t likely to catch can be deemed unenforceable.)
• Customer complaints and disputes: A lack of clarity often results in more complaints. Industry ombudsmen and complaint handlers frequently side with customers who say they weren’t properly informed. If a firm cannot show evidence that a customer was given information in a clear way, the complaint may be upheld.
• Reputational damage: Being technically “in the right” by the contract won’t save a company’s reputation if many customers feel misled. News of poor communication can spread, and trust in the brand erodes. Once trust is broken, businesses lose clients and referrals.
• Legal challenges: In a courtroom, if a consumer argues “I never knew about this term,” a simple signature is a weak defense. Judges can and do question whether the person truly consented with understanding. As noted, there are cases where signed agreements or certain clauses were thrown out because the customer’s consent wasn’t informed.

All these risks boil down to one core issue: an agreement without context is an agreement without clarity. Both sides are essentially flying blind about each other’s understanding. This creates an environment where misunderstandings thrive and trust deteriorates. Now, let’s look at some concrete examples of how missing context plays out in real scenarios, including one with a modern twist – the use of AI advisers.

When context is missing (real examples)

To truly appreciate the importance of context, consider a few scenarios where it’s missing:

1. The AI-Assisted Decision: A consumer is about to sign up for a complex investment product. The terms and conditions are long and confusing, so instead of reading every word, they copy some key paragraphs into ChatGPT (an AI chatbot) and ask, “Is there anything I should worry about in this contract?” ChatGPT returns a friendly summary: “It looks standard; no big red flags.” Feeling reassured, the consumer signs electronically. Months later, the investment incurs a fee or restriction the consumer wasn’t expecting. They complain to the company, saying, “I wasn’t told about this!” and even cite the advice they got from the AI. The company, of course, had no idea the customer was relying on a chatbot’s summary – that context was completely invisible to them. From their view, the customer received all the documents and signed the agreement. Here we have a dispute: the customer says they understood the terms to be different (because of an external summary), and the business points to the contract. Who is right? It becomes a messy question of who to believe. The AI’s summary certainly isn’t part of the contract, and it may have missed nuances. In this case, the missing context (the customer’s reliance on ChatGPT’s explanation) led to a misunderstanding. But because that context wasn’t captured or provided by the company in a reliable way, both sides are now at odds. The customer might argue they were misled (albeit by a third party tool), and the business has to defend a situation it never even saw coming.

2. The Verbal Assurance: A client is buying an insurance policy over the phone. The sales representative explains the main features but skips over some detailed exclusions in the policy document. The client asks, “So I’m covered in all scenarios, right?” and the rep, wanting to close the sale, answers, “Yes, you should be covered for pretty much everything important.” That conversation gives the client the confidence to agree, and they sign the policy paperwork (which was emailed to them) without combing through it. Fast forward to a claim: the client makes a claim for something they assumed was covered, only to find out it’s excluded in the fine print. Now the client is angry: “Your agent told me I’d be covered!” The insurer checks the contract, which clearly excludes the scenario – but there’s no record of what the agent said on the phone beyond possibly a generic call recording. If that call wasn’t recorded or easily reviewable, it’s a classic he-said, she-said. The context of that assurance is missing from the formal agreement. Even if the call was recorded, proving who said what and interpreting it can be contentious. This is a prime example of how missing context (the verbal explanation not attached to the contract) creates risk. The client files a complaint with the regulator, and the company struggles to defend itself, because the written contract alone doesn’t reflect the customer’s understanding at the time of agreement.

3. The “Read Later” Summary: A fintech company provides a lengthy loan agreement in PDF form, but to be helpful, they also send a one-page email summary of key points. The customer reads the summary but not the full PDF. The summary, however, omits some technical conditions (perhaps interest rate change conditions or a specific penalty) to keep things short. The customer signs, believing the summary covered everything major. When a condition triggers that wasn’t mentioned in the summary, the customer feels blindsided. “I never saw that condition,” they claim. The business says, “It was in the full contract.” But the customer only ever internalized the summary – that was their context. If the company didn’t explicitly confirm that the customer understood the full details, the customer’s decision was made on partial information. Again, missing context (the fact that the client mainly relied on an unofficial summary) results in a dispute.

In each of these examples, the root problem is the same: there was a gap between what the person thought they were agreeing to and what the contract actually said. And that gap existed because some context wasn’t documented or verified. Whether it’s an AI’s advice, a verbal promise, or a shorthand summary, if it isn’t captured as part of the agreement process, it can later become a flashpoint. When things go wrong, everyone scrambles to reconstruct the decision-making journey: “What were you told? Where did you get that impression? Did the company provide that info or did you get it elsewhere?” This is not a good place to be for either side. The customer might genuinely have been confused or even misinformed, and the company might genuinely have thought the customer understood. Without a clear record, it’s hard to resolve the issue fairly.

The phrase “who do you believe?” often arises in these situations. If there’s no evidence of the context, resolving disputes becomes an exercise in piecing together anecdotes and recollections. This is not only inefficient and costly (investigations, legal fees, etc.), but it can also feel deeply unfair. Importantly, it’s also avoidable. If the full decision journey – including key explanations and confirmations of understanding – is captured at the time of agreement, these examples would play out very differently. In the next section, we’ll see how regulators are responding to this problem by demanding that businesses do more to ensure consumers understand. After that, we’ll explore how technology like i agree is leveraging these ideas to fill in the missing context and provide a solution.

Consumer Duty and the push for understanding

Companies, especially in the financial and legal sectors, are waking up to the fact that they need to address the “understanding gap.” It’s not just good customer service – it’s becoming a regulatory requirement. In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Duty is a prime example of this shift. Effective from 2023, the Consumer Duty sets higher standards for how firms treat consumers, and a big part of it is ensuring that consumers truly understand what they’re getting into. It’s no longer acceptable to just hand someone a thick booklet of terms and say “we’ve disclosed everything, our job is done.” The FCA explicitly states that consumers should be given information “at the right time, and presented in a way they can understand.” In other words, clarity and timing of information are key. If a customer needs to make an important decision, the firm should provide the crucial facts in a digestible format, up front, rather than hiding critical details in page 19 of a PDF.

The Consumer Duty’s emphasis on customer understanding essentially calls for context to be included as part of doing business. For instance, under the Consumer Duty’s “Consumer Understanding” outcome, a bank or insurer must not only provide information but also take steps to confirm that the customer understood it. The guidance encourages layered and engaging communications: use clear summaries, highlight the key terms, avoid jargon, and even consider using multimedia or interactive tools. All of this aligns with the idea of capturing context. If a firm summarizes a product’s key risks in plain English and maybe accompanies it with a short video, they’re providing context that goes beyond the raw legal text. But crucially, the firm also should verify understanding – for example, by asking the customer to confirm they get it, or by recording that the customer viewed the explanation. The FCA wants firms to show evidence that they “enabled” the customer to understand. If later audited, a company should be able to produce a record like: “Here is what we showed the customer (e.g. a summary of fees), here is when we showed it, and here is how the customer acknowledged understanding.”

Legal regulators are on a similar wavelength. The UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), for example, expects lawyers to ensure clients comprehend what they are signing. Professional rules often require that terms are explained in a way the client can understand, especially when there is a risk of the client not fully appreciating the implications. Failure to do so can mean the agreement isn’t binding or the lawyer faces disciplinary action. These trends all point to a common theme: informed consent is moving from a nice-to-have to a must-have. A signature alone – whether a wet ink signature or a digital click – is no longer viewed as sufficient proof of a fair agreement if the customer might not have understood what they were agreeing to.

Think of it this way: Regulators are raising the bar from “Did the customer sign or tick the box?” to “Did the customer understand and agree knowingly?” This is a profound shift. It means firms need to build in that context and evidence of comprehension as part of their processes. The days of the 30-page unread contract are numbered. If a company continues with business-as-usual, they risk regulatory sanctions, lawsuits, and loss of reputation because they won’t be able to demonstrate that their customers were well-informed. By contrast, those that adapt – by simplifying communications and capturing the decision context – will not only satisfy regulators but also likely see fewer complaints and stronger customer relationships. After all, an informed customer is often a happier customer.

One concrete example of this shift is how complaints and disputes are resolved. If a customer complains, regulators may ask the firm to prove what information was provided and how. Under Consumer Duty, a firm might have to show the “audit trail” of a customer’s journey: for instance, that the customer was shown a highlighted summary of key terms, that they had to actively confirm understanding of certain high-risk clauses, or that they watched an explainer video about the product. If a firm can produce that kind of evidence, a complaint might be resolved quickly (and likely in the firm’s favor, if everything was indeed clear). If they can’t, they might be in trouble. This pushes businesses toward embracing solutions that provide this kind of context and evidence by design. In the next section, we’ll look at one such solution – the i agree platform – and how it effectively “staples” the missing context to the contract, creating a much clearer picture of the decision for all involved.

i agree: capturing the full decision journey

How do we bring context into the agreement itself? This is where modern technology and platforms like i agree come into play. i agree is designed as a next-generation agreement platform that addresses exactly the issues we’ve been discussing. Instead of treating a contract as a static document to be signed, i agree turns it into a guided experience – almost like a conversation – that captures all the important context along the way. The idea is that when a customer says “I agree” using this platform, it genuinely means “I understand and agree,” with proof to back it up.

Here are some key ways i agree staples context to contracts:

• Plain-language summaries: Before throwing a full contract at the user, the platform presents short, clear summaries of the most important points. These summaries use simple terms (no legal jargon) and highlight things like costs, risks, cancellation policies, and other “essential” points. The goal is to ensure the person sees the forest, not just the trees. For example, if you’re agreeing to a loan, i agree will show a summary of the interest rate, total cost, any fees, and what happens if you miss a payment – right up front in digestible sentences.
• Q&A and interactive explanations: i agree builds a Q&A capability into the agreement flow. If clients have questions, they can get answers in context, right there in the contract process. Rather than picking up the phone and creating an off-record verbal answer, the platform lets customers click on terms they don’t understand or view definitions in plain English. It can even allow customers to ask questions and get a documented response. This means the typical back-and-forth that might happen via email or phone (and later be forgotten or disputed) is instead captured as part of the agreement record. The context stays attached.
• Voice and video confirmations: One of the most innovative aspects is using voice or video to confirm understanding. For instance, after reading a summary of key terms, the customer might be prompted to click “I understand” or even record a short voice note or video saying “I understand and agree to these terms.” This leverages the earlier-mentioned production effect – hearing the key points or speaking them out loud can greatly improve comprehension and recall. More importantly, it provides human evidence of consent. A recorded clip of the customer acknowledging a specific term (like “I understand there’s a £50 early termination fee”) is powerful proof that they knew what they were doing. It’s no longer just a checkbox; it’s a real moment of informed agreement, saved as evidence.
• Detailed audit trail: Behind the scenes, i agree keeps a time-stamped log of everything that happens during the signing process. It notes what screens or pages the user saw, what videos they watched (and for how long), which explanations they opened, and every confirmation they gave. If the user hesitated at a particular clause and requested clarification, that’s logged too. Later, if there’s ever a dispute, this audit trail can be pulled up to show exactly what information the customer had and how they responded. For example, instead of a vague “the customer signed the contract,” the record might say: “12:01pm – customer watched a 1-minute summary video of the contract’s key points; 12:03pm – customer confirmed understanding of fee schedule via voice consent; 12:05pm – customer e-signed the agreement.” That level of detail changes the game in terms of evidence.

By capturing these elements, i agree effectively includes the decision-making journey with the final contract. The result is that both parties – the firm and the customer – have a shared, verifiable story of how the decision was made. There’s far less room for “I thought X” or “No one told me Y” because the important X’s and Y’s were presented and recorded.

Let’s revisit the earlier examples and imagine them in an i agree scenario:

In the AI summary case, instead of the customer having to rely on ChatGPT externally, the company using i agree would have provided their own concise, AI-powered summary and possibly an AI assistant within the contract flow to answer questions. The customer’s questions and the answers would be part of the record. So if the customer later said “I didn’t know about this fee,” the company can show that during the process the customer was shown a summary including that fee and even confirmed understanding with a quick quiz or acknowledgement. The misinterpretation from ChatGPT wouldn’t occur because the company preempted it by giving a clear summary and checking comprehension during onboarding.

In the verbal assurance case (insurance example), i agree could provide a short explainer video or audio for what’s covered and not covered, which the customer would listen to before finalizing the policy. The customer might then answer a quick yes/no question like “Do you understand that items A, B, C are not covered by this policy?” If they say yes (or even speak “yes” on record), that’s captured. The temptation for an eager sales rep to gloss over details is removed because the platform itself ensures the details are delivered and confirmed. If a dispute arises, the insurer can produce the video and the customer’s recorded confirmation where they acknowledged the exclusions. It no longer hinges on an undocumented phone chat; the context was transparently provided and saved.

What about the summary email case? With i agree, the summary is not a separate, possibly incomplete email – it’s an integral part of the contract flow. And it’s interactive: if a customer doesn’t understand something in the summary, they can click for more info. The platform might require them to scroll through (or hear) all key points before allowing the final agreement, ensuring nothing was skipped. All of this is recorded. So if the customer later says “I only saw the summary,” the company can respond, “Yes, and that summary contained exactly these five points which we highlighted for you, and you confirmed each one.” The summary is no longer an unofficial add-on; it’s a structured part of the agreement process.

By now, it’s hopefully clear why capturing context can “change everything.” It transforms agreements from a leap of faith (hoping the other party understood, hoping what was promised matches what was signed) into a clear meeting of the minds with evidence to back it up. For regulated companies under frameworks like the Consumer Duty, this approach is a godsend: it creates demonstrable compliance. For consumers, it builds trust – they can see that the business is being open and making sure they truly get the deal. It feels more like a partnership and less like a possible trap.

Finally, beyond dispute prevention, there’s a positive business case for all this. When customers actually understand agreements, they tend to be happier and more loyal. They’re not nervously waiting for a “gotcha” moment because they know what to expect. They’re also less likely to call customer support with basic questions, since those were answered upfront. Businesses save time and money by avoiding complaints, reducing legal battles, and streamlining the onboarding process (fewer delays due to confusion). In other words, providing context isn’t just about avoiding negatives – it actively creates positives: clarity, trust, and efficiency.

In conclusion, the missing context in decisions has long been the quiet culprit behind contract disputes and customer dissatisfaction. But it doesn’t have to remain missing. By recognizing that an agreement is more than a document – that it’s really the culmination of a whole decision journey – we can change how contracts are formed. Capturing the who, what, when, and how of understanding leads to agreements that are not only signed, but also truly agreed upon in spirit. When context is included, both sides know exactly where they stand, and that changes everything. It turns “I agree” from a risky formality into a trusted foundation for doing business.

• Informed Consent: Understanding Beyond Signatures – Explains why a signature alone is not enough and how informed consent provides proof of understanding.
• High Stakes, Low Engagement: Closing the Contract Engagement Gap – Discusses how most people don’t engage with contracts (skipping reading) and the consequences of that engagement deficit.
• Consumer understanding reduces disputes and complaints – Describes how improving customers’ understanding of agreements leads to fewer complaints and regulatory issues.
• Legal & Compliance: Proving true understanding – Outlines how i agree helps firms meet FCA Consumer Duty and other regulations by providing evidence of clear communication and comprehension.

• Adobe 2025 Contracts Survey – Most people don’t read before they sign – Survey found 69% of consumers admitted signing contracts without knowing all details; two-thirds later found unexpected terms (15% calling them “horrifying”).
• Deloitte Study on Terms & Conditions (2017) – Research indicating that around 91% of consumers consent to terms and conditions without reading them, highlighting the prevalence of skipped fine print.
• Belsner v Cam Legal Services case (2020) – Legal case in which a court ruled that a client’s mere signature wasn’t enough; the client’s informed consent was required for the agreement (underscoring the need for clear disclosure of terms).
• FCA Policy Statement PS22/9 (Consumer Duty) – Financial Conduct Authority documentation emphasizing that firms must enable customers to understand key information and make informed decisions, rather than relying on buried terms.