BlackBoiler vs LexCheck: how they compare in 2026

Remove the models and nothing remains to sell. The product is an automated contract editing engine: it converts an organisation's prior redlines, approved language and written guidance into executable playbook logic, applies that logic to a new agreement, and returns tracked changes and comments in Microsoft Word. There is no repository, workflow or signature product underneath it that would still function without the models. The June 2026 Veris release adds a generative, conversational layer for playbook building and clause interrogation on top of the patented deterministic editing engine, so the platform now carries both a rules-driven and a generative component and both are the product rather than a layer on it. Eleven US patents are stated to cover document revision, playbook-driven markup and clause handling. Checked 8 September 2026.

Remove the models and nothing remains to sell. The vendor states the systems are built on large language models, and the two capabilities that constitute the product both depend on them: automatic capture of a customer's preferred positions from an uploaded template into a working playbook, and evaluation of an incoming contract against those positions to surface deviations and propose redlines. There is no repository, workflow, approval or signature product underneath that would still function if the models were removed; the self-serve platform exists to review and edit the playbook the models generated. Two named products ship: LexCheck Insights, described as AI-powered contract review software that evaluates every contract and catches deviations in seconds, and LexCheck Copilot. The vendor describes its playbooks as LLM-powered and trained on the most common provisions and ready to use across virtually every contract type. Checked 8 September 2026.

Grounding is real, documented and unusually traceable, but no accuracy figure is published. The vendor describes a four-stage chain in its own words: evidence (the customer's prior redlines, approved language and guidance), logic (how those materials become executable rules), checking (a stated judge validator assessing whether a proposed change aligns with the intended outcome, plus statistical similarity checks), and output (tracked edits and comments returned for lawyer review). The earlier ContextAI capability surfaces, for each redline, the playbook rule that prompted it and prior examples of the same edit inside the organisation, which is a provenance trail a reviewer can open for every proposed change. Failure modes are named plainly rather than implied: the vendor states that playbook coverage may be incomplete, that contract language may depart from prior examples, and that unusual provisions may require a lawyer to make a fresh decision. R15 governs the limbs that do not bite: this product cites no legal authority and has no citator, so the primary-authority and citation-status limbs are inapplicable rather than failed, and the grounding limb is read against the customer's own approved language, which is what the output is actually grounded in and which is surfaced to the reviewer. A is unavailable because no measured accuracy figure and no test set are published anywhere. Checked 8 September 2026.

Accuracy is asserted repeatedly and measured nowhere, which is the C band's first limb exactly. The claims located are comparative and unquantified: the vendor states its system's AI is highly accurate and that this lowers risk more than human review, and its blog states that accuracy exceeds attorney counterparts while cutting review time by more than ninety per cent. No accuracy figure attributable to a test is published, no test set is described, no method is set out, and no third-party validation is referenced. Failure modes are named nowhere on the estate: nothing states what the system does with contract language outside the playbook, with unusual provisions, or where a position is ambiguous. What does exist, and what keeps this off the floor, is a described rationale surface: the vendor states that insights are transparent and explain why particular contract language is potentially problematic and requires attention, so a reviewer sees a reason attached to each flagged passage rather than an unexplained mark. R15 governs the limbs that do not bite. This product cites no legal authority, retrieves no cases and has no citator, so the primary-authority, citation-status and no-support limbs are inapplicable rather than failed, and grounding is read against the customer's own playbook positions. B is unavailable because the rationale surface is asserted rather than described: no retrieval or matching method is published, so a buyer cannot tell what the explanation is derived from. Checked 8 September 2026.

All four A limbs are published, and the commitment sits in the customer agreement rather than in marketing alone. What the system runs alone: the first-pass markup, producing tracked changes and comments. What constrains it: the customer's approved playbook positions, with rules reviewed and approved by the customer before use. The review surface: Microsoft Word track changes, in the document the reviewer already has open. The route back to human judgement: the reviewer decides what to accept, change, reject, escalate or negotiate, and the vendor states that new risks, exceptions and negotiation decisions are left to the appropriate reviewer. The threshold at which the system stops is structural and stated rather than numeric, which is what most records in this lane leave unstated: nothing is applied to the agreement without the reviewer accepting it, because the output is a proposal in tracked changes. Clause 3(b) of the Access Services Agreement carries the same position contractually, stating that use of the Services is not a substitute for and shall not take the place of review and analysis by a qualified lawyer. Unlike the Case Status record under R37 there is no marketing claim anywhere that the system handles review autonomously, so no contradiction reveals a missing limb. Checked 8 September 2026.

Oversight is asserted and one real control is described, but nothing addresses oversight of the output, which is where this axis bites. What is published: the customer reviews and finalises the drafted playbook in a self-serve platform before use, can add fallback positions and adjust language, and the vendor frames this as maintaining control and being able to edit the playbook at any time. That is a genuine described control, but it governs the standard rather than the result. Nothing published states whether a lawyer must review the redlines the system proposes, at what point the system acts alone, what happens when it is wrong, or what route a flagged contract takes back to human judgement. No human-in-the-loop commitment appears on any surface, and no such provision appears in the Terms of Service, which were read in full. Two of the vendor's own statements pull against each other and R37 rule 2 governs the treatment: the platform is presented as keeping the customer in control, while the technology page states the AI is highly accurate and lowers risk more than human review, and the marketing states the tools are easy enough for anyone to use so reviews can be completed without the need for external support. The conflict is not graded as such; what it reveals is that the threshold at which the system's output is relied on without legal review is unstated, and that is the limb missing. B requires a written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, and no such commitment is published. Checked 8 September 2026.

The C band describes this record in its own words: unattributed testimonials and logo-level customer claims stand in for evidence. Four testimonials are published, attributed only to a first name and surname initial or to a verified user, in the shape review-platform content takes, and none carries an organisation or a figure. The customer base is described at category level, as AmLaw 25 law firms and Fortune 1000 organisations with several customers in construction, but no customer is named anywhere on the estate and no case study, deployment figure or before-and-after measurement is published. Awards and research funding were considered and are not counted as deployment evidence: a 2021 AI Breakthrough award, a National Science Foundation SBIR award and Virginia Innovation Partnership Corporation portfolio status are recognition and capital, not evidence of production use. One structural point belongs in the note rather than the grade, because it may explain the absence rather than excuse it: clause 12(c) of the Access Services Agreement is a mutual no-publicity provision under which neither party may issue any public statement mentioning the other without prior written approval, so named references would require a per-customer waiver. The grade records what is locatable, not a judgement about why. Checked 8 September 2026.

Real deployment evidence with named customers, short of attributed measurement, which is the B band. Two case studies are published with the customer named and a quotation attributed: NetApp, on contract review, and RSM, whose quoted reviewer calls it the best technology implementation they have witnessed for value and ease of use. A further customer strip names Autodesk, Bio-Rad, DigiCert and NetApp. That is named production use rather than logos alone. What holds it off A is that the figures and the names are never joined. The headline outcome claims are aggregate and unattributed: more than a seventy-five per cent increase in speed to close, contracts signed in as little as one day rather than weeks, and more than a fifty per cent reduction in legal costs per contract review. None is tied to a named customer, dated, or supported by a stated basis or method, so a reader cannot assess how any of them was derived or over what population. Under the R25 triage the two case study pages were named but not opened, because the grade rests on the named customers and attributed quotations visible on the home page rather than on the contents of those pages; had the grade turned on a figure inside them they would have been load-bearing and read. Checked 8 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments across most of the ground, held at B by the limb R33 makes mandatory. What is published and readable before signing: customer ownership of all contract data under clause 7(b); a contractual bar on training third-party foundation models absent customer authorisation; a purpose limitation confining use of customer data to configuring, improving, supporting and operating that customer's own use of the service; a statement that customer data is not used to train models shared with other customers; customer-specific isolation with dedicated instances available on enterprise deployments; access limited to authorised personnel with access controls and logging; encryption in transit and at rest; and a mutual confidentiality regime running five years with trade secret protection surviving indefinitely. Two limbs are missing and both are required for A. Privilege and work product are not addressed anywhere, expressly or by implication, which under R33 is dispositive on its own and is the limb this axis exists to test. And the position on what a third-party model provider may retain cannot be stated because no model provider is identified anywhere on the estate, so a buyer cannot establish whose model touches its contract text or what that provider's retention terms are. Checked 8 September 2026.

Substantive commitments a buyer can read before signing, held at B by two absent limbs, one of which R33 makes mandatory. Published and readable: the customer exclusively owns all right, title and interest in Client Data irrespective of whether it is stored or processed in the platform, with assignment of any interest the vendor might be deemed to hold; Client Data is expressly within the definition of the customer's Confidential Information; confidentiality obligations run during the term and thereafter with no expiry; disclosure is restricted to personnel with a need to know; data is stored and processed in the United States with ninety days' notice of any change in processing location; the security page states customer data is only used to provide the service and that the vendor does not look into an account without permission; and encryption is AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or greater in transit. Two limbs are missing. Privilege and work product are not addressed anywhere, expressly or by implication, which under R33 is dispositive on its own. And the position on training use is silent across all three published instruments, so a buyer cannot establish whether contract text reaches a model, while no model provider is named anywhere so what any such provider may retain is equally unestablishable. Segregation between users or matters is also unaddressed, which matters given law firms are a named buyer segment. Checked 8 September 2026.

A real position on advice versus tooling is published, and it sits in the customer agreement rather than only in a website disclaimer, which is stronger than the C band's boilerplate-in-the-terms pattern. Clause 3(b) of the Access Services Agreement, headed Review of Outputs and No Legal Advice, states that use of the Services is not a substitute for and shall not take the place of review and analysis by a qualified lawyer. The supervision and competence dimension is addressed rather than omitted: the vendor sells expressly to contract managers and procurement staff who are not lawyers, and answers the question directly, stating that a lawyer reviews the redline before anything moves forward and handles exceptions, new risks and negotiation decisions. The marketing does not describe the product in advice terms anywhere; it consistently describes a first pass returned to a lawyer. A is unavailable because jurisdiction limits are named nowhere: no statement identifies which jurisdictions the product is appropriate for, and the only geographic restriction located is a website terms provision limiting site use to United States residents, which governs the website rather than the service. Checked 8 September 2026.

Nothing published addresses the advice line for a product that proposes contract language, and the product is expressly sold to people who are not lawyers. The Terms of Service were read in full and contain no statement that the service is not legal advice, no requirement or expectation of lawyer review, and no provision addressing competence or supervision. The privacy policy and the security and technology pages contain nothing on the point either. The intended audience is not ambiguous, which removes the other route to C: the vendor names legal departments, sales departments and procurement departments among those it serves, and states that its tools are easy for anyone to use so a team can complete reviews efficiently without the need for external support. That is marketing addressed to non-lawyers describing the product as a substitute for outside legal help, with no accompanying statement about what the product is and is not. One provision was tested and does not reach this axis: clause 11.3 disclaims warranties including accuracy of results, but a warranty disclaimer allocates risk for defective performance and says nothing about whether output constitutes legal advice or who should review it. Under the no-double-spend rule it is graded on AI Liability and Recourse, where it answers the question directly. The grade records what is locatable on the date. Checked 8 September 2026.

No governance position is published for a system whose output is proposed contract language. Nothing identifies who inside the vendor is accountable for AI governance, no pre-release testing regime is described, no evaluation results are disclosed, and nothing addresses uneven output across contract types, counterparties or drafting conventions. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no model card, no AI policy and no certification such as ISO 42001, and no third-party governance assessment is referenced. The C band was tested and does not fit: C describes principles published without a mechanism, and here there are no published principles at all. The one candidate consideration is recorded and rejected on the no-double-spend rule: the vendor does describe validation machinery, a judge validator assessing alignment to intended outcome and statistical similarity checks. That is product quality control on individual outputs, it is spent on Citation Accuracy and on Autonomy where it answers those axes directly, and it is not a governance position about how the vendor builds, tests and is accountable for its models. The grade records what is locatable on this axis as of the date. Checked 8 September 2026.

No governance position is published for a system whose output is proposed contract language. Nothing identifies who inside the vendor is accountable for AI governance, no pre-release testing or evaluation regime is described, no results are disclosed, and nothing addresses uneven output across contract types, counterparties, drafting conventions or jurisdictions. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no model card, no AI policy, no certification such as ISO 42001, and no third-party assessment referenced. The C band was tested and does not fit: C describes principles published without a mechanism, and here no principles are published at all. Two items were considered and rejected as belonging to other axes under the no-double-spend rule. The operational security policies described on the security page govern IT assets, disaster recovery and access control and are validated under SOC 2 guidance, which is security governance rather than AI governance and is spent on Security Certifications and on AI Safety. And the accuracy assertions on the technology page are marketing claims about performance, not a testing regime, and are spent on Citation Accuracy. The absence is notable in context, since the vendor's own material makes a comparative claim that its AI is more accurate than human review while publishing nothing that would let anyone test or govern that claim. Checked 8 September 2026.

Substantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set in exactly the two ways the B band names. Published and specific: retention is addressed, with customer data retained for the duration of the customer relationship unless otherwise agreed; deletion is available at contract end or earlier on customer request; access control is described concretely across two documents, with access limited to authorised personnel who need it, access controls and logging, and infrastructure access secured by VPN, secure tokens and IP whitelists issued only to approved employees; encryption is stated as AES256 at rest and TLS in transit; backups are confirmed and stated to be encrypted; and clause 7(b) confirms the customer owns its data and that the vendor will not sell it. Two elements are absent and both are the B band's named shortfalls. No subprocessor list is published anywhere, so a buyer cannot enumerate who touches its data; only Amazon Web Services for hosting and Stripe for payment processing are individually named. And no incident or breach notification practice is published on any surface. One disclosed detail is recorded because it is the kind of candour this index credits under R65 rather than penalises: the vendor states that individual client files may in some instances be temporarily downloaded onto an employee's encrypted hard drive for testing. Retention carries no stated period, which is graded on the retention signal rather than here. Checked 8 September 2026.

Substantive published policy covering nearly the whole of the A band, short of it on the single limb the B band names. Published and specific: incident practice is unusually strong, with the Data Processing Addendum committing to written notice without undue delay and in no event longer than twenty-four hours of becoming aware of a Security Incident, including the details the customer needs for its own notification obligations, alongside documented detection and response procedures; the Terms add a broadly defined Security Event, a notification and cooperation obligation, and a customer or regulator right to audit books, systems and log files following an incident. Deletion is specific: all copies of Customer Personal Data including archival copies destroyed within ninety days of termination, return within thirty days on request, secure physical destruction of media, and a Certificate of Deletion supplied within thirty days on request. Access control, encryption at rest and in transit, regular penetration and vulnerability testing, backups with a stated twenty-four hour recovery time and recovery point objective, and an annual audit right exercisable for any reason are all published. The B band's named shortfall is exactly what is absent: no subprocessor list is published. The DPA makes one available on reasonable request with thirty days' notice and an objection right before any new third party is engaged, which is a strong change-control mechanism but is not a published list. Retention of contract content is also addressed only as prescribed intervals, naming no interval. Checked 8 September 2026.

A real published position on liability, complete on three of the four A limbs, held at B on what a buyer can actually invoke when the output is wrong. Published and specific in the Access Services Agreement: indemnity scope, at clause 9(a), covering third-party claims that the Services infringe or misappropriate US intellectual property rights, with the vendor controlling defence and holding modify, replace or terminate options; carve-outs at clause 9(a)(iii) for use in unauthorised combination, customer modifications, Customer Data and Third-Party Products; and a cap at clause 10 limiting aggregate liability to amounts paid in the twelve months preceding the claim, with named exceptions for confidentiality breach, IP infringement, customer payment obligations and breach of the use restrictions. What is not available is anything a buyer can invoke when the AI output itself is wrong, and the agreement says so rather than leaving it ambiguous. The IP indemnity does not reach output quality; clause 8 disclaims all warranties express, implied and statutory; clause 3(b) defines the risks of relying on any edit, redline, comment, summary, suggestion or analysis as Customer's Assumed Risks; and clause 9(b)(ii) requires the customer to indemnify the vendor against third-party claims arising from those assumed risks. No insurance is referenced. Under R65 this is disclosure of an adverse allocation rather than a gap between marketing and agreement, and it is written as the vendor telling the buyer where it stands: nothing contradicts it, and the record is graded consistently with Juro, whose published exclusion of AI output from the indemnity earned the same grade. Checked 8 September 2026.

All four elements the A band names are published and specific, including the one most vendors in this lane omit entirely. Indemnity scope, at clause 9.1, is broader than the usual intellectual property carve: the vendor indemnifies against losses arising from any Security Event, from any failure to comply with the confidentiality and data security article, and from third-party claims that the platform infringes intellectual property rights, with the vendor controlling defence at its own cost and a licence, replacement or refund path at 9.4. Caps, at clause 10.1, are the charges paid in the preceding twelve months. Carve-outs are specific in both directions: 9.3 excludes unauthorised combination and customer-supplied designs, while 10.3 makes liability entirely uncapped for Security Events, confidentiality and data security failures, indemnification obligations, fraud, wilful misconduct, gross negligence and service level credits. Insurance is a full article rather than a mention: the vendor must maintain primary coverage of at least one million dollars with A-rated carriers, name the customer as an additional insured with equally broad coverage, furnish certificates on request, give thirty days' notice of cancellation or material alteration, and waive subrogation, with the stated intent that the vendor's insurance rather than the customer's responds. Affirmative warranties at 11.1 include that the platform will perform the functions described in the Documentation with a repair-or-replace obligation. A service level of 99.9 per cent availability carries a defined credit and a termination right after three consecutive failures. One limit is named rather than buried, because it is the adverse half of the picture: clause 11.3 disclaims accuracy of results, so the warranty runs to conformity with the Documentation rather than to the correctness of any individual redline, and nothing is invocable for a wrong output as such. Under R65 that is disclosure of an adverse allocation, credited rather than penalised, and it is stated here so a reader weighs the wording rather than the grade. Checked 8 September 2026.

One integration exists, it is into the system this work actually lives in, and its depth is described well; the rest of the practice stack is named without documentation. The Microsoft Word add-in is the delivery surface rather than a connector, and what it does is set out concretely: the review runs inside Word without moving to a separate environment, the playbook is selected in the document, and the output returns as native tracked changes and comments for the reviewer to accept, change or reject. For a contract redlining product that is the integration that matters most, and it is the reason the product fits a reviewer's existing workflow rather than requiring migration. Beyond it the picture thins. SSO and API access are named as enterprise entitlements with no description of what the API exposes or what a firm must configure. No document management or contract lifecycle management platform is named anywhere as an integration partner: the vendor positions itself explicitly as sitting alongside a CLM at the point the CLM leaves open, and describes handing back to the customer's existing process, but no named connection to any CLM, DMS or e-signature system is published. A requires documented integrations plural into the systems legal work lives in, with sync direction and configuration described, and that is not available here. Checked 8 September 2026.

An integration into the contract stack is claimed and no system is named, which is the C band's substance. The vendor states the platform is built to seamlessly integrate with the customer's contract lifecycle management solution and to optimise the negotiation phase of the lifecycle, but names no CLM platform anywhere on the estate, publishes no integration page, no partner list, no connector documentation and no API reference. Nothing describes what would sync, in which direction, or what an implementer would configure. Microsoft Word is the one named system, and the product does deliver into it, described as keeping work in one place and working in the customer's usual word processing software; the privacy policy separately refers to plug-ins exchanging information with LexCheck. That is a named surface without a description of what actually moves between it and the platform, and the primary workflow described elsewhere is web-based, with the user signing into the platform and uploading a contract. B was tested and declined: it requires real integrations that are documented, and what is published here is one delivery surface asserted without description alongside a category-level integration claim with nothing behind it. A third-party source names two channel partnerships; that is an aggregator listing, excluded outright as evidence, and is recorded only so a later reader knows it was seen and refused rather than missed. Checked 8 September 2026.

Tenancy is stated and region is not, which under R38 clears C because tenancy and region are co-equal limbs and publishing either one lifts the grade off that floor. Published on tenancy: customer-specific isolation measures are used to keep customer data separate, enterprise deployments may include dedicated customer instances and customer-specific data separation controls, and data is described as held in a silo accessible only to the client and necessary vendor staff. Published on infrastructure: the service runs on Amazon Web Services, with production, staging and development infrastructure all stated to be in AWS. What is absent is any region at all. No AWS region is named, no choice of region is offered, no European or other non-US option is described, and processing location is nowhere distinguished from storage location, which matters for a product marketed to law firms and to a construction and AEC sector that contracts internationally. The vendor also states expressly that it does not publish detailed architecture or infrastructure detail publicly, so this is a disclosure decision rather than a retrieval limit and it is recorded as such. This record sits in the band gap R38 logged and left unfixed: a vendor publishing tenancy alone fits neither B nor C cleanly, and B is taken because C's words, that neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated, are false here. Checked 8 September 2026.

Residency is published to a level almost nothing else in this lane reaches, and the distinction the A band asks for is drawn expressly. Regions are named in the agreement rather than gestured at: clause 1.6 identifies the primary data centres as located in Northern Virginia and the secondary in Oregon, and provides that the platform and Client Data may only be hosted at those data centres or others the customer approves. Clause 8.6 addresses processing separately from storage, stating that the platform and services are provided from the United States and that Client Data will be stored and processed in the United States, requiring at least ninety days' advance notice before any change in processing location, and giving the customer a right to terminate without penalty with a pro-rata refund if data is stored in a foreign jurisdiction it has not approved in writing. The Data Processing Addendum reinforces it, committing the vendor to inform the customer in writing of all countries where data is processed or stored and to obtain consent, and recording the United States as the only such country as of the effective date. Hosting is on Amazon Web Services. The tier limb does not bite and is named rather than counted either way under R15: a single cloud deployment model is offered, with no on-premise, private cloud or region-choice variation to describe. One genuine gap is recorded and is the reason this call is flagged: the tenancy model is stated nowhere, so a buyer cannot establish whether the deployment is single or multi-tenant or how separation is achieved. Checked 8 September 2026.

A real named certification without scope or date, and no way to obtain the report without a sales conversation, which is the B band precisely. The vendor states on two separate surfaces that it is SOC 2 Type II certified. What is not published: the auditor is not named, the audit period or report date is not stated, the scope of the assessment is not described, and no other certification or attestation is claimed anywhere, with no ISO 27001, HIPAA attestation or public penetration test summary located. Access to the report is sales gated and therefore earns no credit under R5: the report is available to qualified prospective customers on request through the sales or security review process, and the vendor states that additional security materials and completed security questionnaires are reserved for enterprise evaluations while standard team and individual subscribers are directed to the public page. C was tested and does not fit: C describes badges with no scope, no date and no report available, whereas here a specific standard is named and a substantive self-published Security and Trust page sits behind it, carrying a seventeen-question security FAQ covering hosting, encryption, isolation, access, retention, deletion, backups and authentication. That page is a genuine trust surface, self-published rather than a hosted portal, but it carries no reports, dates or covered standards, so A is unavailable. Checked 8 September 2026.

A real named certification without scope or date and with no route to the report that avoids a sales conversation, which is the B band precisely. The vendor states it has achieved and maintains SOC 2 Type II accreditation and that its operational security policies are regularly reviewed and validated per its SOC 2 guidance. What is not published: the auditor is not named, no audit period or report date is given, and the scope of the assessment is not described. Access is sales gated and therefore earns no credit under R5, the page directing a reader to contact their Account Executive to obtain the most recent Type II report. A second badge sits under the same Certifications heading and is not a certification: GDPR compliance is described as best practices maintaining strict compliance, which is a self-assertion with no attestation, auditor or scope behind it, and it is recorded as such rather than counted. The security page itself is substantive and self-published rather than a hosted portal, setting out hosting, encryption, data usage, recovery objectives, ownership, operational policies, retention and penetration testing, which is what keeps this above the C band's bare badges. A is unavailable because nothing there carries reports, dates or the standards actually covered, and no self-serve route to evidence exists. Checked 8 September 2026.

The vendor refers to generative AI throughout and identifies nothing that sits underneath it, which is the C band in its own words. No model is named, no model provider is named, and no architecture is described beyond the four-stage evidence, logic, checking and output framing. The gap is sharpened rather than softened by the agreement, which concedes the category while naming no participant: clause 7(b) permits processing Customer Data using third-party infrastructure, technology and artificial intelligence services, and separately bars training third-party foundation models absent customer authorisation, so the vendor's own contract establishes that third-party models are in the supply chain a customer inherits while no surface identifies which. The Third-Party Products definition offers only a generic example. Two named third parties were considered and neither reaches this axis. Amazon Web Services is infrastructure, and under R29 test 1 naming a cloud host says where a model runs rather than whose model it is; Stripe is a payment processor and touches no contract content, being expressly routed outside the Word add-in and the conversational interface. D was tested and does not fit, because D requires nothing published about the model supply chain and the agreement does address the category and constrain it. Change notification is not reached: with no models or providers named, notification would be the fourth limb of an A the record cannot approach. Checked 8 September 2026.

The vendor refers to the models generically and identifies nothing underneath them, which is the C band in its own words. What is published is that the systems are built on large language models, that these are ideal for handling large sets of data, and that the playbooks are LLM-powered and trained on the most common provisions. No model is named, no model provider is named, no architecture is described, and nothing states whether the models are the vendor's own or a third party's. The Terms of Service and the Data Processing Addendum were both read in full and neither identifies an artificial intelligence subprocessor; the DPA's third-party mechanism is generic and its list is available only on request. Amazon Web Services is named as the hosting environment and as a subcontractor in the support exclusions, and under R29 test 1 naming a cloud host says where a model runs rather than whose model it is, so that fact is spent on infrastructure and does not reach this axis. D was tested and does not fit, because the vendor does publish that large language models sit behind the product; what it withholds is which. Change notification is not reached: with nothing named, notification would be a fourth limb of an A this record cannot approach. Checked 8 September 2026.

Real pricing is published for part of the range with the enterprise tier withheld, which is the B band verbatim. Published: three named tiers, Starter, Pro and Enterprise; a monthly and annual billing toggle stating that annual billing saves 17 per cent; a seven-day trial with an express statement that a credit card is required and that the selected subscription begins when the trial ends unless cancelled; and an itemised account of what Enterprise adds over the fixed plans, covering unlimited documents, users and teams scaled to the organisation, SSO, API access, playbook build and maintenance support, guided onboarding, a dedicated success manager and the option of custom contract terms and service level commitments. Enterprise is stated not to be published as a rate, with the reasons given as contract volume, users and teams, playbooks and agreement types in scope, and security, deployment and support commitments. The agreement adds commercial terms most of this lane leaves unpublished: fees payable in US dollars, 1.5 per cent monthly interest on late payment, suspension after ten days, automatic renewal for successive terms equal to the initial term, and thirty days notice of non-renewal. The purchase path is self-serve, with card and wallet payment accepted. One retrieval limit belongs here and is not graded against the vendor: the Starter and Pro figures render client-side and the plan cards returned a loading state, so the figures themselves were not read, and the vendor's own June 2026 launch PDF confirms the tiers exist without publishing rates. A is unavailable on what was established rather than on what is absent. Checked 8 September 2026.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge. There is no pricing page on the estate, no rate, no band, no tier name, no feature split, no minimum term, no seat minimum and no free or trial tier with stated terms. Every purchase path resolves to a demo or contact request, and the agreement confirms the shape: fees are set entirely in an Order Form executed between the parties, with clause 2.3 leaving the Unit of Measure to be specified per order as named users, concurrent users, devices, locations or transactions. That clause describes what an order may contain rather than telling a buyer what this vendor charges for, so it does not lift the axis. C was tested and does not fit, because C describes pricing gated behind a demo while tier names and feature splits are published, and no tier or feature split is published here at all. Two commercial terms were located and are recorded rather than used to lift the grade, because they govern how a price may change rather than what the product costs: clause 5.3 caps any renewal increase at the lesser of two per cent of the prior year's charges or the rise in the vendor's list prices, which is a genuinely protective term rarely published in this lane, and clause 5.4 sets thirty-day payment with a one per cent monthly late fee and a good-faith dispute process. Clause 5.6 records that a satisfactory credit check is required before a subscription starts. No VendorPricing row is written, per the R10 discipline that a page inviting only a sales conversation is an absence. Checked 8 September 2026.

Segment and practice coverage is described with substance, with the boundaries left open. Three buyer segments are set out separately, each with its own stated position rather than a shared line: in-house legal teams reviewing the same agreement types at volume, law firms applying set positions across client matters, and contract managers applying standards the legal team has already defined. One vertical has a dedicated page and product framing, construction and AEC contracting, and it is supported by the vendor's category-level claim of several construction customers. Agreement types are named rather than implied: NDAs, service agreements and subcontract agreements are identified as the recurring types the product is built for, with more complex contracts stated to be within scope subject to playbook coverage. The product's own limit is stated honestly, that usefulness depends on playbook coverage, the language and context of the agreement, and lawyer review, which is more than most records in this lane publish about where they stop working. A is unavailable on two limbs. Practice areas are not addressed as such, since coverage is organised by agreement type and industry rather than by practice; and government use is nowhere described, the only government-adjacent material being a US Government Rights clause in the agreement, which is a contract term about licence rights rather than a statement of coverage and is not counted here. Checked 8 September 2026.

Who the product serves is set out as an explicit list rather than implied, with the boundaries left open. Seven segments are named: legal departments, sales departments, procurement departments, global enterprises, high-growth businesses, private equity firms and law firms. The named customers corroborate breadth across segments rather than clustering in one, spanning technology, professional services and life sciences. Buyer framing is differentiated in the material, with the platform positioned for teams reviewing recurring commercial agreements at volume and for non-specialist users applying positions the legal team has set. What is left open is the coverage boundary. Contract type is addressed only by the claim that the playbooks are ready to use on virtually every contract type, which is a breadth assertion with no supporting enumeration, no list of supported agreement types, and no statement of where the product works less well. Practice areas are not addressed as a dimension at all, coverage being organised by buyer function rather than by practice. Government use is nowhere described. A requires the limits to be stated and they are not; C was tested and does not fit, because coverage here is not a bare claim to serve everyone but a specific and differentiated segment list. Checked 8 September 2026.