Prepare Contracts for AI Review — Clauses Under Strict Grounding
Contract review tolerates zero invention: clauses packaged under strict grounding, obligations cited by section, and missing terms reported as missing — never assumed.
Overview
Contracts are where AI review is most useful and most dangerous: the language is dense enough that help matters, and an invented term costs real money. This packaging puts clauses under the strictest discipline — only the delimited text exists; every obligation, deadline, and cap cited by section; missing terms reported as "The source does not say." rather than filled from typical-contract knowledge, because THIS contract's deviation from typical is exactly what review exists to find. The task makes the shape explicit: list obligations, deadlines, and caps, citing the section for each.
Workflow
-
Forbid the typical
General contract knowledge is the enemy here — strict grounding shuts it out.
-
Cite every obligation
Uptime, credits, notice periods — each claim carries its section number.
-
Treat absence as a finding
What the contract does NOT say is reported as exactly that — often the review's most valuable line.
Why This Works
- Strict grounding blocks the typical-contract fill-in that hides deviations
- Section-cited obligations are verifiable against the text in seconds
- Absence-as-finding surfaces the gaps negotiations care about most
Best for
- SLAs, service agreements, and vendor contracts
- Pre-signature reviews and obligation inventories
- Anyone for whom an invented term is expensive
Not for
- Legal advice — this structures the reading; judgment stays human
- Summarizing the contract for stakeholders — the Structured Summary Prompt's legal mode
Use cases
- Extracting obligations, deadlines, and caps with citations
- Reviewing clauses without typical-contract assumptions
- Making "not addressed in this contract" a first-class finding