.jpg)
In this article
Your lists
Do not throw every contract into one semantic bucket
The first decision is segmentation: contract type, jurisdiction, client, and validity status. If the corpus mixes historical templates, annexes, and redlines without context separation, the engine will retrieve correct phrases from the wrong document.
Prepare the history before asking for answers
A good contract history requires explicit metadata: effective date, version, counterparty, critical clauses, and the relation between the main agreement and its annexes. Without that, asking for a 'contract summary' is just requesting improvisation with formal tone.
- Identify the master document, annexes, and redlines.
- Mark validity, jurisdiction, and signature status.
- Separate drafts from executed documents.
Design questions bounded by clause and purpose
The best queries are not broad. They are questions such as 'show current confidentiality obligations and exceptions' or 'which termination windows apply to the signed version'. The clearer the question, the easier it is to validate the citation.
Always return quoted text and document path
The minimum output must include quoted fragment, document reference, version, and source link. An interpretive summary may exist, but it should never replace the base citation. That order prevents a polished explanation from hiding a weak source.
Reserve human review for ambiguity, conflict, and change
The system should escalate automatically when it finds contradictory clauses, unresolved annexes, or a missing final version. Do not promise to solve legal ambiguity on its own. Promise to bring counsel to the right paragraph faster.
Unlock the full article
Sign in with your Kodex community account to keep reading.
