Because any number produced before someone has read your code is a guess with a decimal point. Two apps that look identical from the outside can differ by a factor of ten in what they take to fix, depending on whether the data model fits the product and how much of the code is actually load-bearing. The review exists to turn that guess into an estimate, and it is priced so that it stands alone.

Yes, unconditionally. The report is yours when it is written, and you are welcome to take it to another team or act on it yourself. A review released only on condition of buying the remediation is leverage rather than analysis, and you should decline to buy one from anyone on those terms, including us.

Then that is what it says, and it is a legitimate outcome rather than a failed engagement. Knowing your app is in reasonable shape has real value, particularly if you were about to spend considerably more on remediation you did not need. It happens, and we would rather write that report than manufacture findings to justify the invoice.

Sometimes, and we will tell you when it makes sense. If your problem is genuinely isolated and you can describe it precisely, a small fixed-scope fix is reasonable and we will scope one. If the symptom looks structural, fixing it in isolation is work you pay for twice, and we will say that instead of taking the smaller job.

No. It runs month to month, and your code, documentation, and access stay yours throughout. Handover to another team is part of the arrangement rather than a penalty for leaving. A month is short enough to test whether the arrangement actually works, which is the point of pricing it that way.