FAR / DFARS flow-down · research, not legal advice
The clause is in your document. The mandate may not be in the regulation.
A prime sends 40 pages citing 90 clauses. Every incumbent tool answers one question — does the clause apply? — and stops. That leaves the more useful question unasked: does the regulation actually require this to flow down to you, or did it arrive because the prime's template says so? WhatBinds rules both, separately, and cites the prescribing paragraph for each so you can write your own email to the buyer.
35 published flow-down documents from 9 primes, ruled clause by clause. Nothing to upload — these are the templates they publish themselves.
Two axes, never collapsed
Every row carries two independent marks: the trigger is met, and the regulation requires flow-down. They are not the same fact and the engine never merges them.
It will not guess
If you skip a question, say you are not sure, or give an answer the engine cannot read, it asks you again rather than guessing. Only a clear no rules a clause out. It never asserts "this doesn't apply to you" on its own.
Your document stays with you
The base ships to your browser and the ruling happens there. Nothing about your subcontract is sent anywhere, because there is nowhere to send it to.
Every claim carries its citation
Each ruling reports the verbatim condition that decided it and the acquisition.gov reference behind the clause. Facts that could not be closed against the primary source say so.
This is research, not legal advice. It summarizes public regulation with citations so you can check it; it is not counsel, and it does not rule on whether a prime's markings are correct. It rules on what follows from the answers you give.