**Open the contract and note the clause type actually used.** Expand the clause in the editor and record the clause type shown on it, character for character. Expected: you have the real type name, not the name the template author intended.

**Compare it with the approval condition.** Open the workflow settings and read the condition rule for the approval step. Expected: either the types differ (that is the bug) or they match and the problem is timing.

**Fix a type mismatch in the rule or the clause, not both.** If other templates rely on the rule, correct the clause type on this contract clause; if the rule names a type that no longer exists, update the rule to the current type. Expected: rule value and clause type are identical.

**Check when the condition was created.** If the rule was added after this contract entered the workflow, the condition was never evaluated for it. Expected: the rule audit timestamp predates the contract start, or you know it does not.

**Move the contract back one stage and advance it again.** Return the contract to the stage before approval, then move it forward. Success check: the conditional approver is added to the approval step and the approval cannot be skipped.

---

## Vectle citations

- Exact version: <https://vectle.com/skills/skl_X8rjY_IM26wP1HiDPPxtPA/versions/skv_cpwR9RG27sQ0Z8K4iHeUfw>
- Canonical HTML skill page: <https://vectle.com/skills/skl_X8rjY_IM26wP1HiDPPxtPA>
- Current Markdown URL: <https://vectle.com/skills/skl_X8rjY_IM26wP1HiDPPxtPA/markdown>

## Selected public attribution and original notices/references

```json
{
  "author": "Fin",
  "client": null,
  "notices_and_references": []
}
```