Contract Generation

Challenges Contract Generation addresses

Done by hand, contract negotiation means gathering agreed deal terms and contract settings, working through 3 separate passes over the same material, then producing ready to send?, generated contract and clause coverage. None of it is difficult and all of it is exacting, which is the combination people are worst at holding. The errors that matter are the ones a tired reader does not notice, and they surface later — in a reconciliation, or in somebody’s reply. It waits until someone remembers it, which is usually the point at which it has become urgent. As volume grows the work does not get harder, only longer, and the first thing to go is the checking.

Contract Generation runs that same sequence end to end and returns the result as structured artefacts. What it cannot settle it hands over rather than guesses at, and your correction is kept: it asks “Would legal accept this as a first draft?” after every run, and those answers become the set it is measured against. Nothing that moves money, alters a contract or reaches a customer executes without human approval, and every action is written to an audit log. The gain is in the volume that no longer has to be read, not in removing the judgement.

How it works

Step 1: Selecting clauses from your library

First of 3. It works from agreed deal terms and contract settings and feeds the step after it.

Key Tasks:

• Working from the run so far: This step takes agreed deal terms and contract settings and carries it toward step 2.
• Following the same rules each time: The behaviour is configuration rather than judgement made fresh per run, so contract negotiation is handled the same way every time.
• Surfacing what it cannot settle: Anything ambiguous is passed on as ambiguous rather than resolved silently.

Outcome:

• Passed on: The result passes to the next step, with anything unresolved carried forward as an open item rather than dropped.

Step 2: Assembling the contract

Step 2 of 3. It takes what step 1 produced and hands its result to step 3.

Key Tasks:

• Handling the contract: The work at this step is the contract, scoped to that and not extended to anything the run has already settled.
• Leaving the record behind it: What this step did and what it decided are written down, so the result can be traced without re-running the step.
• Working from the run so far: This step takes what step 1 produced and carries it toward step 3.

Outcome:

• The contract handled: The result passes to the next step, with anything unresolved carried forward as an open item rather than dropped.

Step 3: Checking the assembled contract

Last of 3. It takes what step 2 produced and produces ready to send? and generated contract.

Key Tasks:

• Running the checks in order: Every rule for contract negotiation is applied to every record, in the same order each run. A record is not skipped because it looks routine.
• Recording evidence, not verdicts: Each check stores what was expected and what was found, so a failure can be understood without re-running anything.
• Separating clear from unclear: A check the agent cannot settle is marked unresolved rather than passed, which keeps "checked" meaning checked.

Outcome:

• All checks pass: The record clears with its evidence attached, available if anyone asks later.
• A check fails: The record is held with the failing checks named and the rest shown as passed, so a reviewer sees the scope of the problem rather than only that there is one.

Step 4: Your review, and what it changes

The run ends with a person, not with a result being filed.

Key Tasks:

• Asking a specific question: It asks “Would legal accept this as a first draft?” rather than for a rating. A question about this run is answerable; a score out of five is not.
• Keeping the correction: What you change is recorded against the case that produced it, so the disagreement is retrievable rather than absorbed.
• Building the evaluation set: Those cases become what the agent is measured on. It is scored against your judgement rather than against a general benchmark.

Outcome:

• A measured agent, not an assumed one: The cases Contract Generation handles well and the cases it does not are both visible, and the second list is the one that decides what changes. Nothing is retrained silently on the back of a single correction.

Why use Contract Generation?

• Answers from your own material: It retrieves from a knowledge base you populate — your policies, contracts and reference documents — so its decisions follow how your business actually operates rather than a general model’s assumptions. Sources are cited alongside the result.
• Every statement cites its source: Findings come back with the records behind them, so a reviewer can check a claim instead of deciding whether to trust it. An assertion with no source is the expensive kind to discover late.
• Checks are evidenced, not asserted: Each check records what was expected and what was found. A failure can be understood — and argued with — without re-running anything.
• Read against your standard position: Clauses are compared to the position you already take rather than to a generic template, so what comes back is the deviations rather than a summary of the document.
• Corrected by the people using it: After each run it asks “Would legal accept this as a first draft?”. Those answers become the evaluation set, which means it is measured against your judgement rather than ours.