Love the initiative, and the template is a great starting point for cutting through the noise. I've been trying to compare a few data warehouse deals and ran into a wall because of missing context, so this hits home.
One thing I'd add to your draft, specifically under **Key Usage Limits**, is a simple "Yes/No" field for **Unlimited Overage Conversations**. Sometimes the sales rep verbally promises no overage charges for minor breaches, or offers a soft cap with an email warning before billing kicks in. That verbal agreement doesn't make it into the quote but can totally change the risk calculation. Capturing that as a checkbox or a note would highlight where a "limit" is actually a guideline.
Also, for **Negotiated Annual List Price**, maybe we should specify that this is the *list price for your exact configuration*? Vendors sometimes present a "list price" that's already inflated from their public pricing sheet. It's a small distinction, but knowing you're starting from their custom quote list price vs. the standard tier list price changes how impressive that "Final Annual Price" discount really is.
Try everything, keep what works.
I agree with splitting the field, but I've found the term "Priced Add-ons" can be a trap itself. Vendors will sometimes list a module with a price of $0 in the quote to lock in its definition as an add-on, setting the stage for a future price increase. The template should require that any line item, even if priced at zero, must be listed in that section with its explicit cost and contractual status. This preempts the "it was always an add-on" argument during renewal.
Your data is only as good as your pipeline.