Extract to table

4 is unambiguous on one critical point: during Dormancy Status, MeridianCode's support obligations under Section 5 "shall be reduced to the provision of critical-security-patch-only support

" This language is mandatory ("shall be reduced"), unconditional, and comprehensive in its reference to the entirety of MeridianCode's Section 5 obligations

This omission creates a contractual ambiguity that must be resolved through the application of Michigan contract interpretation principles

But the fact that the reduction is contractually authorized does not mean that VMS must continue to pay as though the reduction had not occurred

Furthermore, the maintenance fee provisions must be read in light of the MESLSA's integration clause (Section 14

MeridianCode cannot, consistent with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, demand full payment of $2,400,000 for a comprehensive maintenance and support package while simultaneously acknowledging — indeed, while contractually entitled to acknowledge — that it is required to deliver only critical security patches during the dormancy period