Linking contracts to vendors and tools
Connect each contract to the vendor behind it and the tools it pays for, so spend lines up with what you actually run.
Last updated June 1, 2026
A contract on its own is just a document. Its value comes from connecting it to the vendor that issued it and the tools it pays for. Those links are what let Forest show spend next to capability coverage and surface overlap.
Vendor links
Every contract should point to a vendor. The vendor is the party you have the agreement with. Linking at the vendor level lets you see all agreements with a single provider together, which matters when one vendor sells you several tools under separate order forms.
Tool links
From the vendor, connect the contract to the specific tools it covers. A single contract might fund one tool or several, and a single tool might be split across more than one contract. Forest supports both, so the relationships can mirror your real purchasing.
Why this matters:
Tools map to the capabilities they deliver, so linking a contract to a tool connects spend to the security functions it supports.
Accurate links are the foundation for Spend allocation, where contract value is distributed across tools and domains.
Overlap detection depends on these connections. If two contracts fund tools that deliver the same capability, Forest can flag it. See Overspend and overlap insights.
Linking a contract to a tool does not change that tool's maturity score. Capabilities and CAMP priority drive scoring. The links drive spend and overlap analysis, which inform your decisions separately.
Take time to get these connections right. Spend insights are only as accurate as the relationships behind them, and a missing tool link will leave money unaccounted for.