Terms Risk Review

Challenges Terms Risk Review addresses

Done by hand, contract negotiation means gathering proposed terms and deal context, working through 3 separate passes over the same material, then producing overall terms risk, negotiation position and clause by clause. 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.

Terms Risk Review 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 “Is this the position you would take into the call?” 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: Reading the proposed terms

First of 3. It works from proposed terms and deal context and feeds the step after it.

Key Tasks:

• Locating the material: It works from proposed terms and deal context, so nothing has to be forwarded, re-keyed or renamed first.
• Handling the format it arrives in: Scanned pages, native documents, spreadsheets and message bodies are all read the same way, including layouts where the relevant figure sits inside a table rather than a labelled field.
• Pulling the fields that matter: Only the fields the rest of the run needs are extracted. What cannot be read confidently is recorded as unread rather than filled in with a best guess.

Outcome:

• Fields extracted: The fields are available to the steps that follow, with anything unreadable listed rather than silently defaulted — which is what stops a bad extraction becoming a confident wrong answer three steps later.

Step 2: Assessing every clause

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

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 3: Writing the negotiation position

Last of 3. It takes what step 2 produced and produces overall terms risk and negotiation position.

Key Tasks:

• Writing from the run, not from a template: The text is built from what this run actually found, so two contract negotiation outputs differ where the underlying records differ.
• Leading with what needs a decision: The exceptions come first and the routine detail follows, because the reader is deciding rather than reading.
• Staying inside the evidence: Nothing appears in the text that is not supported by a record the run examined. Gaps are stated as gaps.

Outcome:

• Artefact ready: A finished artefact, traceable line by line to the records behind it, ready for a person to accept or correct.

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 “Is this the position you would take into the call?” 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 Terms Risk Review 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 Terms Risk Review?

• Scored, with the working shown: Scores arrive with their component criteria rather than as a single number, so you can disagree with a criterion instead of only with the total — and two items with the same profile score the same on every run.
• 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.
• Takes documents as they arrive: Scanned pages, native files and awkward layouts are read as they are. Nothing has to be renamed, re-keyed or converted into a template before a run.
• Corrected by the people using it: After each run it asks “Is this the position you would take into the call?”. Those answers become the evaluation set, which means it is measured against your judgement rather than ours.