Contract analytics that answers portfolio questions in minutes, with every row cited to its page
Portfolio questions answered in minutes, every row cited to its page.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Contract Analytics answers questions across the whole contract portfolio with a citation per contract. You ask in plain words; a planner agent shows its steps and definitions first, agents read the governing text of every contract in scope, and a verifier re-opens every cited page. The answer is a table with one row per contract, a citation on every value and the coverage stated.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
The question comes from the board's risk committee, the CFO, a cyber insurer, internal audit or a deal team, usually with a deadline of days: which supplier contracts cap liability below our standard, which customers can terminate for convenience on short notice, which contracts need consent if we sell a business. Legal operations has to scope it first, and decide what "12 months of fees" means — paid, or paid or payable, and which twelve months. Those definitions are rarely written down.
Then someone finds the contracts — in a repository whose metadata was keyed at signature, on shared drives, in e-signature envelopes — and paralegals read each liability and exclusions clause into a spreadsheet. Amendments and side letters are filed separately or not at all, so a superseded cap gets used and a carve-out is missed. Finance joins spend by supplier name. Counsel spot-checks a sample; unreadable scans quietly drop out and the answer never says so. The spreadsheet is emailed, forwarded and re-used long after it is out of date.
Estimated split for one portfolio question across about 1,900 supplier agreements, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents plan, read, calculate and verify every answer; a person accepts the plan and decides what to do with it.
Kestrel & Vane Group holds 4,873 contracts in force across five business units and 30 countries. On Wednesday 14 October, Enterprise Risk needs a number for the cyber-insurance renewal and the risk committee on 22 October. Here is how Hannah Okoro, Head of Legal Operations, answers it, screen by screen.
Hannah's home screen counts the portfolio: 4,873 in force, 4,812 searched, 61 unreadable, and a warning that the APAC regional drive is offline. Below the question bar sits what needs her today — two watched queries with new matches, a change-of-control report from Rafael Duarte waiting for her approval by Friday, and 14 open copy requests, 3 past their 10-day SLA. Tom Ashworth's question is pinned under "Asked for this week".
Tom Ashworth, Enterprise Risk: “For the cyber-insurance renewal and the risk committee on 22 October: how much supplier spend sits under liability caps below our standard, with no carve-out for a data breach?”
Hannah clicks "Ask this". The question becomes: which supplier contracts cap the supplier's liability below 12 months of fees, with no data-breach carve-out? The planner splits it into six steps — scope, find, convert, read, verify, total — each with the agent that will do it, and writes down the definitions: 12 months of fees means fees paid or payable in the 12 months before the claim (policy CP-07); governing text means the latest signed amendment or side letter that changes the clause.
“Nothing runs until you accept it.” Estimated 4 minutes · 1,906 contracts to read.
The plan is stamped "Accepted by Hannah Okoro · 09:12" and the rail shows each step as it runs. Scope: 1,910 supplier agreements, 1,906 read, 4 scans unreadable. The clause reader reads the governing text of 1,906 and finds 1,818 caps, with 88 having no cap clause. The exposure calculator divides fixed amounts by monthly spend: 132 fall below 12 months. Reading the exclusions leaves 40 with no carve-out and no higher cap.
Live in the rail: “Reading Brightwater Logistics · side letter.”
The verifier re-opens every cited page on its own, without the reader's notes. It confirms 37 rows and drops 3, each with its reason. Halden Facilities: Amendment 2 (Mar 2025) raised the cap to 12 months, so the reader's original §10.1 was superseded. Brightwater Logistics: a side letter of 4 Aug 2024 puts data incidents outside the cap, up to $5M. Moravia Print: the cited page 9 is a pricing schedule, so the file goes to coverage for a better copy.
“The verifier can only remove rows. It never adds a row or changes a value; a person decides if a dropped row should be looked at again.”
Above the table, one line Hannah can quote, with chips for "Verified · 37 of 40 rows confirmed on the page", the coverage and plan v1, "paid or payable". The strip shows where the matches sit: Group IT 14 ($21.6M), Industrial 9 ($11.4M), Distribution 7 ($8.3M), Services 5 ($5.1M), Group functions 2 ($1.8M). Every row carries the cap as written, months, the carve-out clause and the notice date. Five notice dates are already marked missed.
“37 supplier contracts cap the supplier’s liability below 12 months of fees with no data-breach carve-out: $48.2M of annual spend, $31.9M below a 12-month cap.”
The top row is Kepler Hosting's master hosting services agreement, signed Mar 2021, with Amendment 2 of Jan 2024 as the governing text. The citation chip opens page 14 of 38 with §11.2 highlighted: liability capped at the fees paid in the 3 months before the claim. §11.4 excludes only fraud, death and personal injury. Beside the page are the $6.4M of FY2026 spend from the ERP and $4.8M below a 12-month cap, with the formula ($6.4M − $1.6M) and the verifier's stamp, confidence 0.93.
Verifier: “Re-opened page 14 on its own, without the reader’s notes, and found the cap in §11.2 and the exclusions in §11.4.”
Kepler Hosting Ltd and its parent are joined from the vendor master: 4 contracts in force, $7.9M of annual spend, 2 below the liability standard. The disaster recovery services order inherits the master agreement's 3-month cap, and the colocation licence already meets the standard. Kepler hosts the group's ERP and customer portal, and a breach there would be recovered only up to $1.6M. The notice to stop both renewals is due by 1 Apr 2027.
Four supplier scans are left out of the answer and listed, with $3.1M of spend between them: Tessaly Couriers (fax copy, image only), Ostrander Metals (pages missing), Quillon Software (password-protected) and Rook & Fennel Catering (a handwritten change). Each row says whether it could change the answer. Hannah requests better copies from the four owners in one step. Across the portfolio, 61 of 4,873 files could not be read, each with its reason.
“The library agent never guesses unreadable text. A file stays out of answers until a readable copy arrives, then it is read and every watched query runs again.”
Hannah saves the question as a watched query that runs again when new contracts arrive, and submits it as a standard report. It waits for Nadia Ferreira's approval; until then readers see only a preview. Viewed as Meera Iyer, the report shows 14 of 37 contracts, $21.6M of spend and $15.0M below a 12-month cap. Her access covers Group IT, so the other business units' terms never reach her screen.
“You see 14 of 37 contracts. Your access covers Group IT. Totals are for the rows you can see; other business units’ terms are not sent to your screen.”
The question log holds Hannah's question as Q-2611 with the access applied (all 5 business units), the verifier's run (120 values re-read, 37 confirmed, 3 dropped), the save, the submission and Meera's preview. Each entry is chained to the one before it and cannot be edited, and internal audit can export the evidence for this month, this quarter or the last 12 months.
“22 entries · chained, cannot be edited.”
The same question, seen by five of the people who ask it, check it and act on it — what it took before, and what it takes now.
Seven agents plan, read, calculate and verify every answer; a person accepts the plan and decides what to do with it.
Breaks a portfolio question into steps — scope, find, convert, read, verify, total — writes every definition in plain words, applies the asker's business-unit access to the scope, and shows the plan before any agent runs.
Reads the governing text of every contract in scope, amendments and side letters included, and quotes it with section and page.
Turns caps into months of fees, joins ERP spend and CRM revenue, and totals, showing the formula on every figure.
Re-opens every cited page on its own and confirms each value; drops any row it cannot confirm and lists it with the reason.
Reads every new contract and amendment, classifies the files it cannot read and asks their owners for better copies.
Runs watched queries again when new contracts or amendments arrive and sends the owner the difference, row by row, with citations.
Builds clause distributions against Kestrel & Vane's clause standards — liability caps, data-breach carve-outs, termination for convenience, governing law and renewal notice.
Accepts plans; a second owner approves reports. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about the answer on screen, the portfolio or what to do next. Every answer points to the clause it came from and can narrow the table for you.
Which of the 37 also process personal data?
22 of the 37 process personal data of customers or employees, with $26.7M of annual spend. The largest is Kepler Hosting, which hosts the customer portal: a cap of 3 months of fees in §11.2 and no data-breach carve-out. Next are Orison Data Systems (HR platform, 6 months) and Pellow Customer Contact (contact centre, 3 months).
Who needs to give notice first?
5 notice dates have already passed: Larchmont Networks, Pellow Customer Contact, Ashgrove Payroll Bureau, Merrow Payments and Marlowe Print & Mail; each renews for another term. The next one due is Orison Data Systems, 1 Nov 2026. 19 of the 37 have a notice date before 14 Apr 2027.
Why was Brightwater Logistics dropped?
The clause reader found a cap of 6 months of fees in §14.2 and no carve-out in the agreement. The verifier re-opened the file and found a side letter of 4 Aug 2024 that puts personal data breaches under a separate cap of $5M. That is a carve-out, so the row cannot be in the answer.
What could not be read, and does it matter?
61 of 4,873 contracts could not be read: 24 faint scans, 11 with pages missing, 9 with handwritten changes over a key clause, 7 fax copies, 6 password-protected and 4 in a language not switched on. 4 of them are supplier agreements that could change the liability answer, with $3.1M of spend.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How every answer is planned, checked and shared — set by legal operations, with the safeguards that cannot be switched off shown as always on.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Verifier re-opens every cited page | Always on | A row the verifier cannot confirm is dropped and listed |
| Coverage statement on every answer | Always on | What was in scope, read, unreadable and why |
| Plan shown before every run | Always on | The person asking accepts or edits it |
| Minimum confidence for a row | 0.85 | Rows below go to “needs a person” instead of the answer |
| Standard reports need a second legal-operations owner | Always on | The author cannot approve |
| Share outside Kestrel & Vane | Off | An external export needs approval code AP-04 |
| Supplier liability cap (CP-07) | 12 months of fees paid or payable | Edited by commercial counsel; saving makes a new version |
| Watched-query digest | On change | On change · Daily 07:00 · Weekly |
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 contract portfolio · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Gartner survey of general counsel, 1 Oct 2025 — 37% relatively low confidence using contract analytics; Censuswide 2026 survey of 538 enterprise leaders, vendor-sponsored — 26% have a quick, reliable way to query their whole portfolio; WorldCC and Deloitte, The ROI of Contracting Excellence — 8.6% average value erosion). $31.9M = the sum over the 37 contracts of annual spend minus the cap in money, on the sample data. Kestrel & Vane Group, the counterparties and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Contract Analytics answers questions across the whole contract portfolio with a citation per contract. You ask in plain words; a planner agent shows its steps and definitions first, agents read the governing text of every contract in scope, and a verifier re-opens every cited page. The answer is a table with one row per contract, a citation on every value and the coverage stated.
A repository search finds documents by their metadata or words. Contract Analytics reads the clause itself across amendments and side letters, works out the answer — such as turning a fixed cap into months of fees using ERP spend — and gives one verified row per contract, with what it could not read listed beside it.
Yes. The clause reader reads the governing text — the latest signed amendment or side letter that changes the clause — and names it on every row. In the working solution, the verifier dropped a row whose cap had been raised by Amendment 2 and another where a side letter carved data incidents out of the cap.
They are never guessed. The library agent records why each file could not be read — a faint scan, missing pages, a handwritten change, a password, a fax copy or a language not switched on — and every answer lists the ones in scope, whether they could change it, and their spend. Owners are asked for better copies, and watched queries run again when a copy arrives.
No. Each role sees only the business units it is allowed, and the wall is applied when contracts are retrieved, before any agent reads them. A standard report viewed by the IT and Hosting category manager shows only Group IT's rows and totals.
Yes. Saved as a watched query, it runs again on a schedule or when new contracts or amendments arrive. The watch agent runs the saved plan exactly and sends the owner the difference, row by row, with citations; a changed definition needs the owner.
Yes. The person asking accepts or edits the plan before anything runs and decides what to do with the answer. A second legal-operations owner approves any standard report with reason codes, the author cannot approve their own, and agents never change a contract or write to a source.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your clause standards, your access by business unit and a sample of your contracts — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will show it to you on your own contracts first.
NDAs back the same day, every change inside the limits counsel set.
1-min demoContract Renewal ManagementEvery renewal decided before its notice deadline, with uplifts and unused seats in view.
1-min demoLegacy Contract MigrationOld contracts loaded into the new CLM with every field measured, renewals found first.
1-min demoWe'll run Contract Analytics on a sample of your own contracts and one question your board has asked.