That’s a neat analogy. Think of a contract clause like a firewall rule: both define conditions and scope. Legally, the clause sets obligations and rights, and technically the rule enforces access or traffic restrictions. The alignment happens when the intent of the clause—say “only authorized users may access data” or “data must be encrypted”—is directly translated into rule parameters: IP ranges, ports, protocols, encryption requirements. If the legal language is vague, the rule will be too permissive or too restrictive, creating gaps. So the best practice is to write clauses with concrete, measurable terms and then codify those terms into precise rule sets. That way the contract’s intent and the firewall’s enforcement stay in lockstep, and any audit can trace the rule back to its legal source.