Collaboration
Coda SLA credit guide
What Coda's own agreement actually says about availability: no uptime percentage, no credit schedule and no claim process, so there is nothing to file for a bad month — plus where a service level for Coda would live if you have one, and the outage record Ontracko keeps regardless.
What SLA credit does Coda pay when it misses?
Coda publishes NO availability SLA at all — no uptime percentage, no credit schedule and no claim process — so there is nothing to file for a bad month, and any "Coda uptime guarantee" figure circulating elsewhere did not come from Coda's own terms. If you have a service level with Coda, it lives in your own Order Form or negotiated agreement — that document, not a public page, is where the commitment and any remedy actually are. Ontracko monitors Coda for free either way and keeps the dated outage record, which is what a renewal conversation runs on. One more thing about the deadline, because Coda not stating one is not the same as there being none: file promptly anyway. A contract can carry a limitation period nobody printed, evidence ages badly, and the status-page record a claim is built on is easiest to defend while it is fresh. If Ontracko shows a date against a Coda claim, that date is our own monitoring reminder rather than anything Coda set — we will never let it expire a claim, and you should never quote it to Coda as their window.
Uptime commitment
None published
Filing window
Nothing to file
Services with SLA data
1
Credit tiers by service
No filable service credit exists for Coda (Superhuman Customer Business Agreement — no availability SLA published) under the standard agreement — not a tier table gap, a genuine zero. CODA PUBLISHES NO AVAILABILITY SLA, SO THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL UPTIME FIGURE TO HOLD IT TO AND NO SERVICE CREDIT TO FILE FOR. Coda is now "Superhuman Docs" (Coda and Grammarly rebranded to Superhuman). Read first-hand 2026-10-09: the Superhuman Terms of Service (https://superhuman.com/legal/terms — coda.io/trust/tos redirects there; "Effective as of October 29, 2025") and the Superhuman Customer Business Agreement (https://www.superhuman.com/legal/terms/customer-business-agreement, "Effective date: October 29, 2025"), which governs paid business use, the Coda Trust Center (https://coda.io/trust) and the Superhuman Docs plans page (https://superhuman.com/plans/docs; coda.io/pricing redirects there — zero "SLA"/"uptime"/"99." on it). Neither agreement contains any occurrence of "service level", "service credit", "SLA" or "uptime", nor any "99.x" figure. CBA §8.3 Disclaimer: Superhuman does not warrant that use of the Services "WILL BE ACCURATE, ERROR-FREE, OR UNINTERRUPTED"; the ToS likewise disclaims that operation will "BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR BE ERROR-FREE". ⚠️ THE TRUST CENTER PUBLISHES A NUMBER, AND IT IS NOT A TERM: the "Uptime and availability" card says "We have a 99.9% uptime commitment to Enterprise customers, and provide real-time and historical platform status transparency." It is marketing copy with no linked document, no measurement definition, no credit and no claim process, and no published agreement makes it binding — the Gong 99.5% pattern — so we do NOT assert it, and nobody should "correct" this profile to a 99.9% commitment on the strength of that card. An Enterprise customer's commitment (and any remedy) would live in its own Order Form — unpublished, and not verifiable from here. Three decoys, not an availability SLA: (1) CBA §1.6.6 Third-Party Services Disclaimer — ceasing access to third-party services "WILL NOT ENTITLE CUSTOMER TO ANY REFUND, CREDIT, OR OTHER COMPENSATION" — it REFUSES credit, and it concerns integrations, not availability; (2) CBA §1.5 Purchase Through Reseller — "Any refund, payments, or credits which Superhuman must provide" are routed via the Reseller — generic routing that creates no availability credit; (3) the ToS Refunds clause — payments are "non-refundable" and "we do not provide refunds or credits for any partially used Subscription periods". The ToS "overdue by 30 days" clause is a payment-collection clock, not a claim window. The 99.9 stored in slaCommitment and the 30 in claimWindowDays above are Ontracko's monitoring defaults carried over so scoring still runs, NOT Coda terms. Grammarly, also a Superhuman product, very likely shares these agreements but is NOT covered by this profile. Sources: https://superhuman.com/legal/terms + https://www.superhuman.com/legal/terms/customer-business-agreement + https://coda.io/trust + https://superhuman.com/plans/docs, read first-hand 2026-10-09.
Is there a Coda SLA credit to file?
No — there is nothing to file. Coda's standard agreement doesn't pay a per-incident service credit, so filing a claim would go nowhere. CODA PUBLISHES NO AVAILABILITY SLA, SO THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL UPTIME FIGURE TO HOLD IT TO AND NO SERVICE CREDIT TO FILE FOR. Coda is now "Superhuman Docs" (Coda and Grammarly rebranded to Superhuman). Read first-hand 2026-10-09: the Superhuman Terms of Service (https://superhuman.com/legal/terms — coda.io/trust/tos redirects there; "Effective as of October 29, 2025") and the Superhuman Customer Business Agreement (https://www.superhuman.com/legal/terms/customer-business-agreement, "Effective date: October 29, 2025"), which governs paid business use, the Coda Trust Center (https://coda.io/trust) and the Superhuman Docs plans page (https://superhuman.com/plans/docs; coda.io/pricing redirects there — zero "SLA"/"uptime"/"99." on it). Neither agreement contains any occurrence of "service level", "service credit", "SLA" or "uptime", nor any "99.x" figure. CBA §8.3 Disclaimer: Superhuman does not warrant that use of the Services "WILL BE ACCURATE, ERROR-FREE, OR UNINTERRUPTED"; the ToS likewise disclaims that operation will "BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR BE ERROR-FREE". ⚠️ THE TRUST CENTER PUBLISHES A NUMBER, AND IT IS NOT A TERM: the "Uptime and availability" card says "We have a 99.9% uptime commitment to Enterprise customers, and provide real-time and historical platform status transparency." It is marketing copy with no linked document, no measurement definition, no credit and no claim process, and no published agreement makes it binding — the Gong 99.5% pattern — so we do NOT assert it, and nobody should "correct" this profile to a 99.9% commitment on the strength of that card. An Enterprise customer's commitment (and any remedy) would live in its own Order Form — unpublished, and not verifiable from here. Three decoys, not an availability SLA: (1) CBA §1.6.6 Third-Party Services Disclaimer — ceasing access to third-party services "WILL NOT ENTITLE CUSTOMER TO ANY REFUND, CREDIT, OR OTHER COMPENSATION" — it REFUSES credit, and it concerns integrations, not availability; (2) CBA §1.5 Purchase Through Reseller — "Any refund, payments, or credits which Superhuman must provide" are routed via the Reseller — generic routing that creates no availability credit; (3) the ToS Refunds clause — payments are "non-refundable" and "we do not provide refunds or credits for any partially used Subscription periods". The ToS "overdue by 30 days" clause is a payment-collection clock, not a claim window. The 99.9 stored in slaCommitment and the 30 in claimWindowDays above are Ontracko's monitoring defaults carried over so scoring still runs, NOT Coda terms. Grammarly, also a Superhuman product, very likely shares these agreements but is NOT covered by this profile. Sources: https://superhuman.com/legal/terms + https://www.superhuman.com/legal/terms/customer-business-agreement + https://coda.io/trust + https://superhuman.com/plans/docs, read first-hand 2026-10-09. Ontracko still tracks Coda’s uptime record for free, which is real leverage in a renewal conversation even without a claimable credit.
Frequently asked
What is Coda's SLA uptime commitment?
Coda does not publish one. Its own agreement states no uptime percentage anywhere, so there is no commitment to quote — any figure attributed to Coda elsewhere did not come from Coda's terms. If you hold a negotiated Order Form, any availability commitment you have lives there.
Does Coda pay an SLA service credit?
No — and there is no commitment behind it either. Coda's published agreement states no uptime percentage and provides no service credit, so there is no figure to miss and nothing to file for a bad month. If you have a service level with Coda, it lives in your own Order Form or negotiated agreement — that document, not a public page, is where any commitment and any remedy would be. CODA PUBLISHES NO AVAILABILITY SLA, SO THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL UPTIME FIGURE TO HOLD IT TO AND NO SERVICE CREDIT TO FILE FOR. Coda is now "Superhuman Docs" (Coda and Grammarly rebranded to Superhuman). Read first-hand 2026-10-09: the Superhuman Terms of Service (https://superhuman.com/legal/terms — coda.io/trust/tos redirects there; "Effective as of October 29, 2025") and the Superhuman Customer Business Agreement (https://www.superhuman.com/legal/terms/customer-business-agreement, "Effective date: October 29, 2025"), which governs paid business use, the Coda Trust Center (https://coda.io/trust) and the Superhuman Docs plans page (https://superhuman.com/plans/docs; coda.io/pricing redirects there — zero "SLA"/"uptime"/"99." on it). Neither agreement contains any occurrence of "service level", "service credit", "SLA" or "uptime", nor any "99.x" figure. CBA §8.3 Disclaimer: Superhuman does not warrant that use of the Services "WILL BE ACCURATE, ERROR-FREE, OR UNINTERRUPTED"; the ToS likewise disclaims that operation will "BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR BE ERROR-FREE". ⚠️ THE TRUST CENTER PUBLISHES A NUMBER, AND IT IS NOT A TERM: the "Uptime and availability" card says "We have a 99.9% uptime commitment to Enterprise customers, and provide real-time and historical platform status transparency." It is marketing copy with no linked document, no measurement definition, no credit and no claim process, and no published agreement makes it binding — the Gong 99.5% pattern — so we do NOT assert it, and nobody should "correct" this profile to a 99.9% commitment on the strength of that card. An Enterprise customer's commitment (and any remedy) would live in its own Order Form — unpublished, and not verifiable from here. Three decoys, not an availability SLA: (1) CBA §1.6.6 Third-Party Services Disclaimer — ceasing access to third-party services "WILL NOT ENTITLE CUSTOMER TO ANY REFUND, CREDIT, OR OTHER COMPENSATION" — it REFUSES credit, and it concerns integrations, not availability; (2) CBA §1.5 Purchase Through Reseller — "Any refund, payments, or credits which Superhuman must provide" are routed via the Reseller — generic routing that creates no availability credit; (3) the ToS Refunds clause — payments are "non-refundable" and "we do not provide refunds or credits for any partially used Subscription periods". The ToS "overdue by 30 days" clause is a payment-collection clock, not a claim window. The 99.9 stored in slaCommitment and the 30 in claimWindowDays above are Ontracko's monitoring defaults carried over so scoring still runs, NOT Coda terms. Grammarly, also a Superhuman product, very likely shares these agreements but is NOT covered by this profile. Sources: https://superhuman.com/legal/terms + https://www.superhuman.com/legal/terms/customer-business-agreement + https://coda.io/trust + https://superhuman.com/plans/docs, read first-hand 2026-10-09.
Does Ontracko file Coda SLA credit claims for me?
No — Coda's standard agreement has no filable service credit, so Ontracko does not draft claims for it. Ontracko still monitors Coda for free and tracks the uptime record, which is useful leverage at renewal.
Let Ontracko file it for you
Connect Coda and Ontracko monitors the SLA, catches every breach, and drafts the claim with the evidence attached. Free — 8% only on recovered credits.