Contract playbook review for their paper — a scored, cited redline that counsel decides, issue by issue
Every contract on their paper redlined against your playbook and back in under two days.
See one case, screen by screen ↓When the business signs up a vendor on the vendor’s own template, every clause has to be read against the playbook: liability caps, ownership of work product, use of our data, audit, renewal, payment, adverse-event reporting. Counsel works out which rung each clause meets, finds the fallback text, writes it in as a tracked change in their defined terms, and then works out who has to approve each move off standard.
Most of that time is not judgement. It is reading 50 clauses to find the six that matter, checking that nothing required is missing, fixing numbering and cross-references after an insert, and chasing Finance or pharmacovigilance for a sign-off — while the requester asks every day when the redline is going back.
Estimated split, in hours, for a typical vendor agreement on their paper, by hand and with the solution.
Six specialist agents read, match, score and redline every paper and route the approvals; counsel decides each issue.
Quillon Insights sends its Market Research Services Agreement at 08:52: $380k over one year, 30 interviews with gastroenterologists and 20 with patients. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Omar opens the intake desk: 8 papers open, 15 issues for him to decide across 4 papers, 2 waiting on approvers (Finance and the Associate GC). Quillon’s PDF arrived at 08:52 and waits at the top of the desk. The risk map plots every reviewed paper by contract value and distance from the playbook, with a band for papers to escalate early.
“Wednesday, October 7 · 8 papers open · playbook v4.2 · target: redline back in 3 business days”
Omar opens the paper and the review starts. Paper intake splits 14 pages into 52 numbered clauses and reads the definitions (“Client Materials”). The clause matcher maps them to 15 playbook families, the deviation scorer finds 46 matches and 6 issues — one required clause missing — and the redline drafter writes 4 tracked changes from the fallback ladder. The approval router already names Omar Haddad and Dr. Kofi Mensah (adverse events).
Each agent’s step shows as it runs, with what it found.
The top issue is not a bad clause but a missing one, at risk 94: “No clause found. The agreement covers interviews with patients and healthcare professionals but says nothing about adverse events.” The redline already shows a proposed new section, and every other clause is coloured by where it lands — Fallback 1, drafted standard, or matched.
“Interviewers will talk to patients and gastroenterologists about Northwind products. Any adverse event they hear must reach Drug Safety within one business day.”
The ladder for adverse event reporting sits under the issue: the standard (forward to Drug Safety within one business day, staff trained before work starts and yearly, reconciliation each quarter; Ines Duarte files it, no approval needed), Fallback 1 (two business days for events heard outside a structured interview, Omar approves), Fallback 2 (only where the provider has no contact with patients or healthcare professionals) and the walk-away line. The precedent: every 2026 market research contract — 17 contracts — had the standard inserted. Omar presses “Insert the clause”.
“This choice needs Dr. Kofi Mensah. Rule: Pharmacovigilance sign-off for any change.”
The inserted clause becomes §12; later sections are renumbered and four cross-references updated automatically. One point is left for Omar to confirm: “Drug Safety” is used but not defined, so the checker proposes a definition — Northwind’s pharmacovigilance department, contact in Schedule 3 — and Omar applies it with one click.
The consistency checker fixes drafting only, never positions.
The rest of the paper is already drafted: §9.1 ownership of recordings and transcripts at Fallback 1 (Northwind owns the report and de-identified transcripts; Quillon deletes recordings after 90 days), §11.2 transfer-of-value data for HCP honoraria at the standard, §6.3 panel subcontractors at Fallback 1, flowing down the adverse-event section. Liability and confidentiality already meet Fallback 1. The route: Omar for the Fallback 1 positions, Dr. Kofi Mensah for the new adverse-event clause.
“Route built from the approval matrix and the rules in Settings. It updates as you change positions.”
Omar accepts the drafts and approves as counsel; the meaning is recorded with it — “the deviations listed are acceptable within my authority”. The pharmacovigilance agreements lead approves the new clause from the email link. Two of two done, and the positions lock once approvals start.
One click builds the Word file — 4 tracked changes, internal comments removed, metadata cleaned — and a cover note to Quillon’s legal team with Priya Raman, the market insights lead who asked for the contract, in copy. The note lists the main points: the adverse-event clause added, ownership of recordings and panel subcontractors at a balanced position, transfer-of-value data at our standard.
The paper’s activity shows who did what, from Priya sending it in, through the scorer’s “52 clauses checked · 6 issues · risk 79”, Omar inserting the standard, both approvals, to the redline sent. The record is marked privileged and confidential. When the paper is signed, the positions agreed become precedent for the next one.
“Every decision is on the audit trail with who, when and why.”
The same contract, seen by the people who carry it — counsel, the playbook owner, the approvers and the business that asked for it.
Six specialist agents read, match, score and redline every paper and route the approvals; counsel decides each issue.
Turns a Word or PDF paper into numbered clauses, reads its definitions and party names, and records value, term and requester.
Maps each clause to a playbook family — liability, ownership, data use, audit, renewal, payment, adverse events and more — and spots required clauses that are missing.
Places their wording on the fallback ladder, explains why it matters for this contract, and scores the risk from severity, value and clause weight.
Writes tracked changes from the approved fallback text, in the paper’s own defined terms and numbering.
Checks the redline for defined terms, numbering and cross-references before anything leaves the company.
Builds the approval route from the matrix: counsel, Associate GC, General Counsel, Finance (SOX), privacy and pharmacovigilance.
Decides each issue. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Counsel can ask about any paper, clause or approval in plain words — or tell it what to change. Answers cite the clause and the playbook rung.
Why is Halvorsen’s liability cap a problem?
Their §9.2 caps Halvorsen’s liability at three months of fees — about $200,000 — and the cap also covers data breaches. The playbook floor is 12 months of fees with a separate data-breach cap; anything below is past the walk-away line. I drafted Fallback 1: 12 months of fees and a breach cap of 3× annual fees — the position Kestrel Cloud accepted in April. Omar can approve it himself.
Does the Quillon agreement cover adverse events?
No. Quillon’s market research agreement has no adverse-event clause, but its interviewers will talk to 30 gastroenterologists and 20 patients about Northwind products. The standard clause forwards any adverse event to Drug Safety within one business day and trains interviewers before fieldwork. Dr. Kofi Mensah signs off.
Add a playbook position for suppliers using AI tools
Drafted as a proposal. 11 papers this quarter said nothing about how the supplier uses AI tools on our content, so counsel answered each differently. The new family “Supplier use of AI tools” has a standard position — disclose the tools, no retention or training on our content, human review for regulated materials — and two fallbacks. It waits for Lena Ortiz to approve before any review uses it.
What is missing from the playbook?
The Monday gap report found 3 clause types with no playbook position — supplier use of AI tools (11 papers), scope-3 emissions data (7) and AI output warranties (6) — and 2 fallbacks accepted so often they could become standard: Delaware law (31 of 33) and net 45 for small suppliers (18 of 21).
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How papers are reviewed, routed and approved is a setting, not a project.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Turnaround target | 3 business days | 2 · 3 · 5 business days |
| Escalate early to the Associate GC | Risk 75 or more (papers over $1M) | Risk 70 · 75 · 80 or more |
| Accept Fallback 1 governing law automatically | On — Delaware or England and Wales | On or off |
| Pharmacovigilance sign-off for vendors who talk to patients or healthcare professionals | On | On or off |
| Finance approval for financial exposure (SOX) | On — commitments over $1M, payment terms under net 45, caps under 12 months of fees | On or off |
| Privacy counsel for any change to data use | On | On or off |
| Mark internal notes privileged | On | On or off |
| Offer our paper instead under $50,000 | Off | On or off |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample papers · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (published legal-review case studies — about 30 minutes a document by hand). People and companies named on this page are characters in the working solution.
Reviewing a contract drafted by the other side against your own playbook: for each clause family, which position their wording meets — your standard, a fallback or past the walk-away line — and what to change. The Third-Party Paper Playbook Reviewer does the first pass with agents and leaves every decision to counsel.
It splits the paper into numbered clauses, maps each to a playbook family, places their wording on that family’s fallback ladder, and scores the risk from severity, contract value and clause weight. Each issue quotes their words and cites the playbook rule.
Yes. The clause matcher checks for required clauses that are not in their paper — for example an adverse-event clause in a market research agreement with patient interviews — and the redline drafter proposes the standard text to insert.
Yes. It writes tracked changes from your approved fallback text, in the paper’s own defined terms and numbering, and checks terms, numbering and cross-references. A Word add-in lets counsel review from inside Word, and the file sent out has internal comments removed and metadata cleaned.
The approval router builds the route from your approval matrix: in the working solution, senior counsel for Fallback 1, the Associate GC for Fallback 2 and the General Counsel outside the playbook, plus Finance, privacy counsel and pharmacovigilance when their rules apply. Each approval is recorded with its meaning and time.
Every Monday a gap report lists clause types with no playbook position and fallbacks accepted so often they could become standard, with a proposed change for each. A playbook change is only made when the playbook owner approves it, and signed positions are kept as precedent.
Yes. The agents only draft. Counsel decides every issue, a named person approves every deviation, and accepting wording below the walk-away line needs a written reason and the General Counsel.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your playbook and fallback ladder, approval matrix and a sample of precedent contracts — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own papers first.
Every patent, court and settlement change becomes a decided, cited generic entry date for each market within hours.
1-min filmPatent ChallengesEvery generic or biosimilar challenge gets its clocks set and a cited response pack the same day, with weeks left to decide.
1-min filmAlliance ObligationsEvery licence and collaboration becomes a live register of obligations, with each milestone caught within a day of its trigger.
1-min filmWe’ll run the Third-Party Paper Playbook Reviewer on a sample of your own past vendor papers, against your playbook.