The governance of technical knowledge transfer within bachelor-level contract agreements represents a critical yet under-theorized dimension of legal and contractual design. This study develops an analytical model to evaluate the structure, enforceability, and temporal dynamics of knowledge transfer provisions in such agreements. Drawing upon doctrinal insights from criminal law theory, liability frameworks, and procedural limitation principles, the research constructs a multidimensional evaluation model integrating legal liability, temporal enforceability, evidentiary standards, and contractual clarity. The methodology synthesizes theoretical constructs from existing legal scholarship and applies them to contractual scenarios, identifying structural inefficiencies and interpretive ambiguities. The findings reveal that knowledge transfer clauses are frequently undermined by vague drafting, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, and unclear limitation periods, leading to disputes and ineffective implementation. The study contributes a structured evaluative framework capable of enhancing contractual precision and legal robustness. The implications extend to legal drafting practices, institutional agreements, and policy-level standardization, while limitations arise from reliance on doctrinal sources and absence of empirical validation.