Your copy. Your pace.

Contract review assistance

Compare contract text against a lawyer-approved issue checklist and prepare cited review suggestions. Every suggestion points to the source clause, preserves the original document, and waits for legal review. Hosting a workflow yourself does not by itself preserve privilege, create zero retention, or certify that a model provider is suitable.

Planning workbook. This file helps you document a process. It does not connect to accounts, read records, send messages, or complete external actions. It works offline and sends no entries anywhere. Entries are not saved automatically; export or print a copy before closing. Avoid entering sensitive information.

1. Define the starting point

A redline that sounds authoritative may misread defined terms or invent a clause. Use retrieval with page/paragraph provenance, an explicit playbook, and a professional review gate. Vendor terms and the specific matter govern what data can be processed.

Process owner and backup rolesWhat will count as complete?

Current handling time and exceptions

2. Walk through the process

1. Approve the data path

Document model provider terms, retention, subprocessors, region, and the firm decision on consent. Do not send matter files until that review is complete.

We have defined the owner, required information, and completion check for this step.Step 1 working notes

2. Preserve the source

Create a restricted versioned source reference and extract text with stable clause identifiers. OCR failures must remain visible.

We have defined the owner, required information, and completion check for this step.Step 2 working notes

3. Apply the review playbook

Check only the negotiated issue categories and record which playbook version applies. Never let document text override system instructions.

We have defined the owner, required information, and completion check for this step.Step 3 working notes

4. Generate cited suggestions

Require source clause IDs, proposed change, reason, and uncertainty. Reject suggestions without an exact supporting clause.

We have defined the owner, required information, and completion check for this step.Step 4 working notes

5. Lawyer review and release

A lawyer accepts, edits, or rejects each suggestion. External transmission requires a separate decision; the model cannot send a redline to the client.

We have defined the owner, required information, and completion check for this step.Step 5 working notes

3. Check the information

Use invented references in this worksheet. Keep real documents and personal records in an appropriate private system.

Reference field	Working record	Check
document_version	source_version	Approval tied to this version
clause_id	citation	Exact source reference
playbook_version	review_standard	Use the approved negotiation playbook
suggestion_id	decision_reference	Accept, amend, or reject
reviewer_id	release_owner	Authorized legal reviewer

Source of truth and access boundaries

4. Verify the process

Use synthetic examples. Mark a check only after recording what actually happened.

A fabricated clause citation is rejected.Prompt-injection text in a contract cannot change the workflow policy.A source version change invalidates approval.No API key or contract text appears in operational alerts.A named person can resolve an unclear or incorrect result.Work stops when the task is complete, withdrawn, or outside the agreed scope.A duplicate or interrupted handoff can be recovered without repeating a consequential action.Expected result, observed result, and recovery notes

5. Decide the next step

Your smallest reversible pilotReview date and decision

Retain qualified professional review for legal, accounting, tax, medical, financial, or other consequential decisions. This workbook does not certify compliance or guarantee results.