Use case
Contract review
Reading an agreement against a checklist: which clauses are present, how they deviate from the standard position, what the renewal and liability terms say. Output is a marked-up list of issues for a lawyer, not an opinion on whether to sign.
- Source
- Editorial ontology entry — no fetched document behind this page
- Evidence
- none on this page — it links to the pages that hold it
- Category
- Documents
- Typical risk
- high
- Entry
- editorial · reviewed 21 Sep 2026
01What this is
Contract review extracts clauses and compares them to a playbook — the positions a firm or company will accept. It works over incoming third-party paper and over an existing contract estate, where the question is usually "which of our 4,000 agreements contain this term".
A good deployment cites the clause text it relied on, shows deviation against the named playbook position, records who accepted each finding, and keeps a full audit trail. Recall matters more than precision: a missed clause is invisible, a false positive is merely dismissed. Accuracy is measured on a labelled sample before rollout.
Pitfalls: playbooks that exist only in a partner's head; scanned PDFs whose text was never extracted properly; and confident summaries of amended agreements where the operative term sits in a side letter. Client contracts are confidential and frequently privileged, so vendor training and retention terms decide whether a SaaS route is available at all.
- Typical data
- contracts, client documents, legal documents, scanned documents
- Solution classes it admits
- Enterprise SaaS, Private cloud, Self-hosted
02Deployment options
- ASSESSMENT
On a neutral reading of this use case, Private cloud is recommended, Self-hosted is a strong alternative, Model API is a strong alternative and Enterprise SaaS is conditional.
- ASSESSMENT
Read as a generic reading of this page, not a recommendation: no organisation, size, jurisdiction, budget or technical capability has been supplied, so wherever an option depends on one of those, it says "unknown". Ask your own question to get a verdict that accounts for them.
Private cloud
RECOMMENDEDManaged model API or private model deployment in your cloud account
- ASSESSMENT
Two patterns fit inside one account in a region you name: call a managed foundation-model API such as Amazon Bedrock, Microsoft Foundry / Azure OpenAI, or Vertex AI; or deploy an open-weight model on GPU compute you control. Your application, retrieval layer, storage, identity and logs remain in your cloud boundary in both patterns.
- ASSESSMENT
The managed-API pattern can use closed-source frontier models without buying or operating GPUs. It is usually the fastest way to build a custom workflow, but prompts and retrieved context are processed by the managed service, so model availability, retention, abuse monitoring and regional routing must be checked for the exact feature and endpoint.
- ASSESSMENT
The private-model pattern gives more control over weights, serving and network paths, and can use managed endpoints or your own containers. It also makes your team responsible for capacity, patches, model upgrades, evaluation and failover.
- ASSESSMENT
Which account you already have is a real input, not a detail: no existing cloud account was named. An organisation that already has a landing zone, an identity provider and a signed agreement with one provider is buying a feature; one that does not is buying a cloud programme, and those are different projects.
- ASSESSMENT
The cloud provider becomes a data processor in either pattern: you need a DPA, a documented region, and an answer on cross-region routing and where support staff can access the environment from.
- RECOMMENDATION
Start with the managed-API pattern when the workflow is custom but model operations are not the source of competitive advantage; move to private model serving only if evaluation, volume, portability or the data boundary justifies the extra operations. Your stated technical capability is "unknown".
- RECOMMENDATION
Recommended for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given you did not say who would run this, the brief involves confidential documents, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
Model API
STRONG ALTERNATIVEA model vendor’s API behind an application you build and own
- ASSESSMENT
You write and host the application — the interface, the retrieval layer, the database, the access control, the audit log — and call somebody else’s endpoint for the model itself. Two kinds of endpoint sit in this class: a closed model from the vendor that made it (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini, xAI, DeepSeek, Moonshot, Mistral, Cohere), and an open-weight model served by a managed inference provider (Together, Fireworks, Groq and others).
- ASSESSMENT
Those two are not interchangeable. A closed model can only be obtained from its vendor or from a cloud that licenses it, so the model and the supplier are one decision. An open-weight model can be moved: the same weights run on a managed endpoint today and on your own GPU later, which makes the provider a swappable component rather than a dependency — and makes the licence, not the contract, the document that governs what you may do with it.
- ASSESSMENT
It is the shortest path to a frontier model: no GPUs to buy, no capacity to plan, no serving stack to patch, and you can change model with a configuration line. What it costs instead is a per-token bill that scales with use and a dependency on one supplier’s availability, pricing and deprecation schedule.
- ASSESSMENT
What the supplier sees is the whole prompt: the user's question, the system instructions, and every passage your retrieval layer attached to it — which is usually the most sensitive part, because retrieval is what puts internal documents into the request. For a brief that involves confidential documents, that is the attribute to check first. What stays yours is everything else: the application, the retrieval index, the identity system, the logs, and the record of who asked what.
- ASSESSMENT
Nothing about a supplier's handling of your data is assumed here. Before real content goes near an endpoint, verify against that supplier's own documents: the data processing agreement, and that it covers the API rather than only the consumer product; whether zero-data-retention or an equivalent no-logging mode is available on your account, and on which endpoints; the default retention period for prompts and outputs, and what triggers human review; the region the request is served from, and whether that is a commitment or a routing preference; the current subprocessor list and how you are notified when it changes; the supported-countries page, which decides whether you may use the service at all.
- RECOMMENDATION
Take this route when the workflow is yours but the model is not the differentiator, and your team can build and run an application. Your stated technical capability is "unknown", which is the attribute this option most depends on. Where the same model is available inside your own cloud account, compare it against private cloud before committing — the application is identical and only the tenancy of the model changes.
- RECOMMENDATION
A strong alternative for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given you did not say who would run this, the brief involves confidential documents, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
Self-hosted
STRONG ALTERNATIVEOpen-weight models on infrastructure you operate
- ASSESSMENT
Documents, queries and embeddings stay on machines you own, using an open-weight model whose licence you review. For a brief that involves confidential documents, that removes a model-API vendor from the data path rather than governing that transfer by contract.
- ASSESSMENT
It costs you the operational work instead: a GPU server, Docker, Linux, backups and a patching routine. Your stated technical capability is "unknown", which is the attribute this option most depends on.
- ASSESSMENT
No processor agreement, subprocessor list or cross-border transfer assessment is needed for the model itself, because no third party processes the content.
- RECOMMENDATION
Recommended where local processing is preferred (you did not say so) and the content is sensitive (confidential documents).
- RECOMMENDATION
A strong alternative for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given you did not say who would run this, the brief involves confidential documents, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
Enterprise SaaS
CONSIDER IFFinished closed-source cloud product with enterprise controls
- ASSESSMENT
This is a complete vendor application, not a model API: examples include an enterprise assistant, coding copilot or document product with the workflow, interface, connectors and administration already built. It can use closed-source cloud models while requiring no model hosting or application engineering from your team.
- RECOMMENDATION
Choose it when the product already performs the actual workflow and its controls meet your requirements. Do not choose it only because its underlying model is strong: a finished SaaS product is less flexible than building against a managed API when your process, integrations or review steps are organisation-specific.
- ASSESSMENT
Vendor commitments are treated as unverified until we have fetched the page that makes them. Until then this option carries questions to ask, not assurances: a signed data processing agreement covering the data you will actually put in; a documented data residency commitment naming the region, in the contract rather than a blog post; a written no-training commitment for your content, including uploads and connected sources; stated retention periods and a deletion path you can exercise; an administrative audit log you can export, and SSO with group-based access control.
- RECOMMENDATION
No jurisdiction was named, so this is the check rather than the conclusion: compare the vendor's stated processing locations and subprocessor list against the cross-border transfer rules wherever you operate before uploading anything.
- RECOMMENDATION
Worth considering for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given you did not say who would run this, the brief involves confidential documents, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
03Deployment stacks
04Tools by hosting option
Self-hosted1
Private cloud2
- SaaSHarveyDomain platform for law firms and legal departments covering document review, drafting and research workflows over a firm’s own material, sold with enterprise security commitments.
- Self-hostedRAGFlowRetrieval engine built around deep document parsing: layout-aware chunking of PDFs, tables and scans, citation-backed answers, and a visual pipeline for building knowledge bases.
Vendor cloud2
- SaaSClaudeAnthropic’s assistant, available as a team and enterprise product with SSO, audit logs, project workspaces and commercial terms, and as an API for building applications.
- SaaSHarveyDomain platform for law firms and legal departments covering document review, drafting and research workflows over a firm’s own material, sold with enterprise security commitments.
05Compliance hot spots
This use case usually raises confidentiality, professional secrecy, personal data, model training, retention, human oversight, auditability, automated decision-making, logging.
- Professional secrecy
- Switzerland
- Personal data
- United Arab EmiratesJapanTaiwanIndiaSingapore
- Model training
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Retention
- Hong Kong
- Human oversight
- Singapore
- Auditability
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Automated decision-making
- European UnionSwitzerlandUnited KingdomUnited Arab EmiratesCanadaUnited StatesSouth KoreaAustraliaBrazilSingapore
- Logging
- European Union
06Example questions
Each of these opens the question box with the text already in it. The answer is researched for your organisation, not for this page.
- 01Our 30-person law firm wants help with contract review. A lawyer must check every suggested change.
- 02Automatically review contracts at a 30-person law firm.
- 03Check incoming NDAs against our standard positions.
- 04Find every contract with an auto-renewal clause.
- 05Extract the liability caps across our supplier agreements.
07Related use cases
- DocumentsSpreadsheet analysisAsking questions of tabular data in natural language — totals, trends, outliers, reconciliations — and getting an answer with the calculation behind it. Works best when the model writes code that runs, rather than reading numbers itself.
- DocumentsRFP draftingAnswering tenders and security questionnaires from a library of previous answers. The work is retrieval plus reuse: most questions have been answered before, in a form somebody already approved.
- DocumentsReport generationProducing a recurring document — a management pack, client update, board summary, compliance return — from data and prior text. The template and the data are fixed; the narrative around them is what takes the time.
- DocumentsOCRTurning images of text — scans, photographs, faxes, historic files — into machine-readable text with layout. The step everything else depends on: no extraction, search or classification pipeline is better than the text layer underneath it.
- DocumentsInvoice extractionReading supplier invoices — header fields, line items, tax, totals — into structured records. The extraction step only. What happens to the record afterwards is invoice processing automation.
- DocumentsDocument classificationSorting incoming documents into types and routing them — which team, which folder, which workflow, which retention rule. Usually the first step of a larger pipeline and the cheapest place to remove manual handling.
Improve this page
Sign in to contribute
From the field
0 deployments · 0 questions
Nobody has reported deploying this here yet, and no question has been opened against this page. Both appear once a reviewer accepts them.