Clment vs Luminance: how they compare in 2026
Clment centers on an individual agreement, a chosen review strategy and explicit reviewer decisions. Its public plans also give a small team a clear starting point, including a free tier and metered AI activity. Luminance connects negotiation with much larger portfolio analysis and configurable business workflows. Its validation process checks answers through several stages and sends unresolved results for human review, while workflow rules can move routine work forward. The services also take different contractual positions on customer data. Clment prohibits model training on customer data. Luminance permits private learning and service improvement under its master agreement, while keeping customer learning confidential and customer owned. Clment's Azure regions and Luminance's order form hosting choices also differ from the processing locations of their external model providers.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
AI powers contract classification, clause review, redlines, extracted dates and answers about agreements. A rulebook supplies the team's positions, while the chosen review strategy controls which findings enter a proposed markup. Single agreement questions use the full text, and portfolio questions retrieve relevant material from stored contracts. The application also retains a contract repository, versions, reviewer comments, key dates and calendar reminders. Those records and collaboration functions remain useful independently of a new model response. Clment is separate from Contract Eagle's older lifecycle platform; the AI review product combines its own ongoing contract workspace with the model driven analysis.
Luminance uses models throughout contract interpretation, negotiation and portfolio analysis. Luna Crescent specializes in extraction, classification and other repetitive legal tasks, while additional models handle work that benefits from broader generative capabilities. A routing layer selects the model for each task, and separate validation models test important answers. The repository connects agreements and amendments into context for later questions, and negotiation uses prior concessions and approved positions to generate markups. Workflows turn those findings into contract actions across legal and business teams. The central service depends on model generated understanding of contractual language and relationships, rather than a template library alone.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Findings quote the clause behind the recommendation, and answers link to the source contract and page. Single document analysis uses a 200,000 token context window, while questions across the portfolio use retrieval augmented generation. Review rules and supporting attachments give the model additional context. When a point appears to require external authority that cannot be grounded in the supplied contract or rulebook, the finding is marked for human verification. Classification carries confidence estimates, but those estimates do not measure citation correctness. No test set, reproducible accuracy result or error rate accompanies the current review system, and the terms warn that output may omit material issues.
Luna Crescent is tested against ContractIQ Bench, with 189,000 manually annotated data points covering provisions such as liability caps, termination rights and confidentiality. Testing includes unseen concepts and blind review by legal specialists. Luminance claims 5 percent higher accuracy than leading general models without an absolute result or named comparators. Separate validation checks important outputs against model agreement, source evidence and task requirements. A failed check can lead to a retry and a visible request for human review. The model is also trained to identify missing information rather than fill the gap. Public sample tasks, a reproducible evaluation set and detailed error rates are not available.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Three review strategies set the default content of a redline. Understand and Negotiate includes findings of medium severity and above; High priority only includes high severity findings; Strict includes every deviation. A reviewer's explicit choice, custom wording or agreement with a finding takes precedence over that default. Reviewers can exclude a change, record their reasoning and generate a Word file with attributed tracked changes. Unsupported external points return for human verification. Proposed rulebook refinements also require approval and retain versions. API keys can automate reviews and content changes, but cannot alter membership, billing, security settings or integrations; those actions require a signed in administrator.
Business users can generate and progress routine agreements under legal approved templates and role permissions, with nonstandard terms routed to legal. Proposed negotiation language appears in Word. For important AI outputs, a separate model or panel checks agreement, supporting evidence and task requirements. Every required critic check must pass; a failed check prompts another attempt using the feedback, followed by a review flag if the problem persists. Customer decisions and workflow actions retain an audit trail. The agreement requires manual interpretation of all results, and the AI terms require interfaces that support human oversight of the system's operation and limitations.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
The current application offers a free plan, paid subscriptions and step by step review workflows, but no named production customer or measured deployment result accompanies the Clment review product. Acme and Northwind agreements illustrate classification, liability findings, proposed changes and version comparison in the product demonstration. Those examples do not identify a customer's actual contract work. Contract Eagle's longstanding lifecycle product has separate customer stories, including ManpowerGroup, but those stories concern that older system. A study of review time, missed clauses or negotiated outcomes for the current Clment release is not available.
Current customer examples tie specific organizations to contracting work. AMD reports finding precedent language in under two minutes, Emma Sleep reports twice as many contracts reviewed per quarter, and Avianca claims 90 percent less document review time. Repository examples include Yokogawa's 99 percent faster response to business questions and Trench Group's two hour tariff analysis, compared with two weeks and about €11,000. Workflow examples include ProSapient reducing eight steps to three and Hitachi moving from NDA generation to signature in under five minutes. These are vendor presented customer results, without a common study protocol or dated measurement period. The current customer base exceeds 1,000 enterprises.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The subscriber agreement prohibits Contract Eagle and its subprocessors from training machine learning models on customer data. It also treats customer data as confidential and limits staff access to people who need it for their duties. Each organization has an isolated workspace, with authentication and roles enforced by Clment. AI providers can retain input and output for up to 30 days, with longer retention or controlled staff review for flagged misuse and legal requirements. Confidential information can be returned or destroyed on instruction, subject to legal retention. The agreement does not specifically address attorney client privilege or work product, and tenant isolation does not describe matter level walls.
Each customer has an isolated environment with separate workloads, data and layered access controls. The agreement treats private learning and outputs as customer property and confidential information, and limits support access to service delivery. It also licenses customer data for product improvements, private learning and usage insights; there is no general prohibition on learning from customer content. Private learning stays with that customer, while nonidentifying usage insights can be retained for improvement. Inputs sent to external models are permitted disclosures directed by the customer. Attorney client privilege and work product are not directly protected by a specific clause, and provider retention limits are not stated in the model list.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Clment reviews agreements supplied by the user and does not draft original contracts or provide an attorney's approval. Its terms describe informational software, disclaim legal advice and require independent checking and advice from a legal practitioner before relying on output. Reviewers control findings and wording, with an executive summary available for colleagues who are not lawyers. The product supports English language contracts and adapts rulebooks to governing law rather than treating every agreement as subject to one country's norms. Named professional competence duties, supervisory procedures for law firms and a complete jurisdictional support boundary are not specified.
The master agreement prohibits treating the product as legal advice or a substitute for relevant independent or internal legal advice. All results require manual interpretation, and customers must tell third party users about those limits. AI Systems Terms add human oversight duties and describe the intended use as legal document analysis, research, contract analytics and legal workflows. The product also serves procurement, finance, sales and other business functions, with exceptions routed to legal. Specific lawyer competence procedures and supported jurisdiction boundaries are not stated. The license permits professional services firms to use the software when serving their own clients.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Review behavior is constrained by rulebooks, source grounding and a prohibition on treating unsupported external authority as established fact. The model should not strengthen a position merely because a user asks for a more combative response, and reviewers approve changes to the rulebook. These are controls on a particular contract review, separate from governance of the models themselves. An accountable AI governance owner, a release testing program and findings about uneven performance across contract types or groups are not specified. The named founder and data protection contact do not have a stated responsibility for evaluating model bias or approving AI releases.
AI Systems Terms require ongoing risk management, records of risks and tests, and data governance that considers bias, representativeness and missing data. The model evaluation process includes task benchmarks, complete workflow testing through ALumNI, blind expert review and a human sign off before a reversible production rollout. Luna Crescent releases must clear ContractIQ Bench and expert review before replacing a current version. These controls extend beyond the information security program and address model behavior before release. An individually accountable AI governance owner and results showing uneven performance across matter types, parties or populations are not specified.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The data processing agreement names the hosting, AI, conversion, security, backup and payment providers, with at least 30 days notice for new subprocessors and an objection process. Access is limited by organization and role, with confidentiality obligations for staff and optional enforced multifactor authentication on paid plans. Encrypted backups remain for 90 days. Customers have 90 days after termination to export their data, followed by deletion, subject to legal and technical exceptions. AI processing has a separate limit of up to 30 days with misuse and legal exceptions. Breach notices must arrive without undue delay, with assistance for the customer's reporting obligations and remediation of the cause.
Customers can delete data during use, with removal from active stores within 30 days and backups within a further 30 days; faster deletion can be requested. Routine backups occur every 24 hours, remain within the hosting region and are kept for 14 to 28 days under the master agreement. Access follows least privilege, with multifactor authentication, optional single sign on and isolated customer workloads. The subprocessor list names hosting, model, support and operations services. New providers require 30 days notice and allow 15 days to object. The data agreement requires notice of a personal data breach within 24 hours, mitigation and information about the affected records and likely consequences.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Paid subscribers receive an intellectual property indemnity for permitted use of the service, with exclusions including customer data, third party data, modifications and combinations. The general liability cap is the prior year's fees; Free has a cap of NZ$100. The IP indemnity, confidentiality breaches, fraud, willful misconduct, personal injury and required refunds sit outside that cap. A software conformity warranty carries commercially reasonable efforts to fix defects. AI accuracy and suitability are expressly unwarranted, and users must check the result. Certain Azure related confidentiality losses are excluded, subject to the data agreement. No insurance commitment or specific remedy for an erroneous contract recommendation is stated.
The October 2026 master agreement provides an IP indemnity for the product, with exclusions for unauthorized combinations, continued infringing use and unsupported versions. A performance warranty allows correction, replacement or a refund of unused prepaid fees. General liability is capped at the previous 12 months' fees, rising to three times that amount for specified data obligations. Confidentiality and IP ownership breaches are outside those caps, and certain legally nonexcludable losses remain protected. Claims require notice within nine months. The agreement separately disclaims losses caused by output errors or omissions and treats customer directed model transmissions as permitted disclosures. No insurance commitment is specified.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Each user connects a Microsoft or Google account to edit a contract or redline in Word Online or Google Docs. Clment places a copy in the connected drive, tracks the session and imports the edited file as a new Word version. Users can delete the drive copy and make the revision active during check in; only the session owner or an invited participant can finish that step. One editor can hold a version at a time. API keys provide regional access to contract work, signed webhooks report events, and MCP connects other assistants. Calendar feeds expose contract dates without permitting changes through the calendar.
Negotiation generates context based markups directly in Microsoft Word using approved language, earlier concessions and comparable agreements. The workflow product connects contract actions, tasks and approvals across business teams and lets other assistants access contract capabilities through MCP. Users can initiate analysis, summaries and reviews from connected applications. The platform also names Outlook, DocuSign and LexisNexis connections. Its technical terms allow uploads from document management systems and virtual data rooms. Connector specific configuration, permission inheritance and the exact fields moving in each direction are not explained. These connections bring AI contract work into existing applications while retaining the central agreement record.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Clment runs on Azure with separate regional workspaces in the United States, Frankfurt, London, Sydney, Auckland and Toronto. European Union storage is in Frankfurt, with AI inference in Sweden Central. For other regions, AI processing may occur outside the selected storage region; the complete processing locations are not specified. Backups stay within the chosen jurisdiction. New Zealand uses local Azure redundancy and a separate local backup provider because Azure has no second region there. If that region becomes permanently unavailable, the terms offer recoverable data or redeployment to Australia at Contract Eagle's expense.
The standard hosted product runs in an isolated customer environment on AWS. Customers choose an available AWS data center through the order form, with backups in the same region and recovery objectives of 24 hours for a complete primary data center failure. Additional inference can run on AWS, Azure or Google infrastructure. Azure and Google processing follows an EU or UK hosting choice; other hosting choices use an unspecified international location. Direct OpenAI API processing takes place in the United States. The complete available hosting region list and routing of each model task are not specified, and a storage choice alone does not fix every processing location.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
SOC 2 Type II covers security, availability and confidentiality, with the report available on request under a confidentiality undertaking. The service terms also commit to regular independent security testing, AES 256 encryption at rest, transport encryption, tenant isolation and limited staff access. Administrators can require Microsoft or Google sign in, disable passwords or enforce multifactor authentication for password users on paid plans. Contract activity records identify the user, action, resource and time. The auditor, examination period and report date are not accessible alongside the attestation claim. Enterprise subscribers may negotiate audit rights beyond the standard report access.
ISO 27001:2022 covers the information security management system for development, sales, support and operation, including the Cambridge technical headquarters, remote workers and cloud processing. SOC 2 Type II examinations cover security, availability and confidentiality, alongside independent penetration tests. Contractual measures include encrypted storage and transport, nightly operating system updates, daily backups, least privilege access and a dedicated data protection officer. Senior leaders review the security program quarterly, and a security advisory board supports it. Audit information and certificates are available through the contractual review process. The auditor names, report dates and examination periods are not specified in the current assurance statements.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Claude language models run through Azure AI Foundry, while GPT language and embedding models run through Azure OpenAI Service. Microsoft supplies the inference infrastructure rather than the model companies' own hosting. Anthropic and OpenAI remain named in the subprocessor schedule, alongside Adobe and Aspose for optical character recognition and conversion. The agreement does not promise a particular model, provider or version and allows substitution without notice. New subprocessors generally require 30 days notice, but that is a separate obligation from changing a model within the existing supply chain. Exact current model versions and the routing between them are not specified.
Luna Crescent is a family of proprietary legal models developed from a general foundation model and specialist contract training. It works alongside other models selected by task through benchmarks and expert review. The subprocessor register identifies AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud for inference inside cloud environments, plus direct OpenAI API processing in the United States. The AI terms distinguish models hosted within infrastructure from requests sent to an external model provider. New subprocessors require advance notice, but the individual foundation models, versions and task routing remain unspecified. No equivalent notice commitment covers every model substitution within an existing provider.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Pro includes five users, 250 contracts, ten rulebooks and 10,000 monthly AI units for $149 monthly or $1,490 annually. Business increases these allowances to 20 users, 1,000 contracts, unlimited rulebooks and 25,000 monthly units for $329 monthly or $3,290 annually. Enterprise is quoted separately. Uploads use one unit per page, questions ten, and a standard review 250 plus five per page. Extra packs start at $19 for 1,000 units and expire after 12 months. The free plan has one user, 25 contracts and an initial allowance. Migration, data entry and template configuration are outside routine subscription support.
Subscription allowances measure the number of files held in the product, and each version counts as a separate document. Annual uploads are subject to a fair use ceiling of twice the contracted document allowance, regardless of later deletion. Fees, payment timing and the initial term are set in the order form rather than a public rate table. Renewal ordinarily repeats the initial term unless either party gives 90 days notice. The standard increase ceiling is the annual Consumer Prices Index change plus three percentage points, unless the order form says otherwise. Assisted implementation and extra module prices are not specified.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The product serves legal teams, operations staff and people reviewing their own commercial agreements. It handles incoming English language contracts, including software agreements and commercial leases, with classification across 16 categories and more than 60 types. Reviews work from the agreement's governing law and the user's chosen rulebook. It does not create original agreements, provide an attorney's sign off or support non English contract estates. Teams needing large enterprise procurement connections, matter management or bespoke lifecycle workflows are directed to other products. Precise law firm size segments, government uses and a complete list of supported legal jurisdictions are not specified.
Legal, procurement, finance, sales, executive and HR teams use negotiation, repository analysis and workflows across commercial agreements. The license also permits professional services organizations to use the product for their clients and includes terms for United States government customers. The legal suite defines Corporate, Diligence and Discovery applications, while the AI terms describe legal document analysis, research, analytics and related legal workflows. Examples span NDA creation, supplier review, liability positions, tariffs and renewal obligations. Precise firm size segments, supported research jurisdictions, language limits and excluded practice areas are not stated. Current product positioning extends across an enterprise's contract work.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The service agreement prohibits training any machine learning model on customer data and extends that prohibition to subprocessors. The data agreement repeats the ban for personal data. Contract Eagle may create anonymized aggregate analytics for internal product development, but the express model training restriction still applies. Reviewer decisions can improve a customer's versioned rulebook after approval; that feature changes instructions rather than granting permission to train a model.
The master agreement licenses customer data for product improvements, private learning, usage insights and outputs. Private learning means recognizing new clauses and contract types from customer training; it belongs to the customer, remains confidential and is not shared across customers. Nonidentifying usage insights may be retained indefinitely for improvement. No general training prohibition overrides those rights. Inputs used with additional model features may also be transmitted to the named provider at the customer's direction.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Customers can instruct return or destruction of confidential information, with written confirmation of destruction within 30 days, subject to legal retention. A terminated account has a 90 day export period, and encrypted backups remain for 90 days. Separately, AI providers may retain inputs and outputs for up to 30 days, or longer for flagged misuse or legal duties. No customer setting eliminates all of these retention paths.
Customers can delete data at any time. Active data stores remove it within 30 days, with backup removal within a further 30 days and expedited deletion available on request. The agreement also provides a 30 day period for retrieving and deleting data after the term ends. Routine backups have a separate 14 to 28 day retention period. No setting guarantees zero retention across application records, logs and external model processing.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Clment enforces its own organization boundaries on each read and write, with invitation based membership and administrative control over sign in methods. API keys operate in the organization's home region and can access workspace content but cannot change roles or security settings. Each person's drive editing connection is separate. A document management system's matter permissions are not inherited at retrieval time, and internal ethical wall arrangements are not specified.
Each customer instance isolates workloads and data through logical, technical and access controls. Administrators configure roles, multifactor authentication and single sign on, while support access is limited to service delivery and may follow additional customer policies. The product applies its own access controls around the contract workspace. No current commitment describes inheriting an external document system's permissions at retrieval time or enforcing a law firm's matter level ethical walls.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The confidentiality clause requires notice as early as reasonably possible before legally required disclosure, together with reasonable action to avoid or limit the disclosure. A further provision requires prompt written notice where law permits it. The data agreement also requires notice before processing personal data to satisfy a legal requirement when permitted. A public transparency report describing received demands is not available.
The confidentiality clause requires notice of legally required disclosure where lawful, giving the customer a reasonable opportunity to respond. Luminance must cooperate with reasonable efforts to resist, limit or delay disclosure at the customer's expense. A separate clause also requires prompt notice and cooperation when responding to a subpoena or judicial, administrative or arbitral order. No aggregate transparency report is specified.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Answers use uploaded contracts, supporting material and the chosen rulebook. Single agreement questions use a full context window, while portfolio questions retrieve relevant passages from stored files. Rules may come from the customer, an AI drafting wizard or Clment's supplied rulebook. The customer retains ownership of its data and grants a service processing license. An external primary law collection, its rights basis and its refresh schedule are not identified.
Contract answers draw on customer agreements, amendments, negotiation history and the platform's standard legal concepts and clauses. Luna Crescent separately learns from more than 3.4 million proprietary legal data points, with an evaluation set of 189,000 annotated points. The customer retains its data and private learning. The sources and rights behind the general training collection, and any primary law collection used for legal research, are not identified individually or accompanied by an update schedule.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Clment cites agreement passages and rulebook positions while reviewing contractual obligations. Its review method flags external authorities that cannot be grounded in the supplied material for human verification. That control does not check whether a case has been overruled or a statute amended. No licensed citator or subsequent history mechanism is specified for authorities that appear in contract material or reviewer instructions.
Negotiation and repository answers are grounded in contracts, amendments and earlier agreed positions. The AI terms also include legal research among the product's intended functions. No named commercial citator, subsequent history calculation or treatment flag accompanies that research description. Source grounded validation checks whether a response follows the supplied evidence, which is separate from checking whether a legal authority remains valid.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
If a finding appears to depend on an external statute, case, regulation or standard that the supplied agreement or rulebook cannot support, Clment marks it as needing verification instead of asserting the authority as fact. This behavior applies across review strategies. Classification also exposes confidence estimates, but those are separate from the unsupported authority warning. No public evaluation demonstrates how consistently the warning catches unsupported assertions.
Luna Crescent is trained to identify information that is absent from the contract rather than invent it. Differential Validation separately checks important responses through independent model agreement or a source grounded critic. A failed check can trigger a retry using the identified problem; continued failure results in a review flag. The current explanation describes those behaviors without a public evaluation of their refusal rate or missed unsupported answers.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database contains no court or disciplinary record about fabricated legal citations attributed to Clment or Contract Eagle as of October 15, 2026. Clment primarily reviews supplied agreements and attaches contract passages to its findings. The database result does not measure the accuracy of those findings, the appropriateness of a suggested redline or the validity of legal authority supplied in a rulebook.
The AI Hallucination Cases database contains no court or disciplinary entry naming Luminance as the source of fabricated legal citations as of October 15, 2026. Luminance's principal workflows concern contracts, but its AI terms also include legal research. The AI Systems Terms require human oversight, and the master agreement assigns the customer responsibility for manually interpreting and using output, including checking its relevance to the particular legal task.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The terms require independent checking and advice from a legal practitioner before relying on contract output. The product also keeps reviewer decisions and makes users responsible for the agreement they accept or amend. These provisions address use of the tool without mapping its controls to a named bar opinion or professional ethics rule. No jurisdiction specific ethics guidance for lawyers is identified.
Professional services customers can identify mandatory requirements imposed on technology providers by their governing body before the order is signed. The master agreement commits Luminance to meet those requirements when compatible with applicable law, and permits regulatory access and assistance in specified circumstances. All output still requires manual interpretation. The agreement does not map these commitments to a named bar opinion or a particular lawyer ethics rule.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Clment's current packaging addresses organizations reviewing their own commercial agreements, including legal and operations teams and individuals handling business contracts. The terms limit use to internal business or personal purposes. Review automation and reusable rulebooks reduce that internal work. The product does not describe a law firm time billing workflow, client fee adjustments or disclosure of AI savings on an invoice to a legal client.
Luminance licenses its product both for internal business work and for services delivered to clients. Current customer examples include faster precedent retrieval, shorter review and fewer workflow steps, while corporate deployments also report operational savings. The contract permits customers to earn revenue from the resulting output. No guidance connects the time saved to a law firm's client invoice, and the workflow audit trail is not presented as a legal time billing record.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The data agreement names Microsoft Azure, Anthropic, OpenAI, Cloudflare, Aspose, Adobe, Catalyst Cloud and Airwallex, with their functions and regional scope. Claude and GPT inference currently runs on Azure infrastructure. Customers receive advance notice of new subprocessors, with emergency exceptions and an objection route. The service agreement and data agreement are available before signup, but a client facing AI consent or outside counsel disclosure pack is not specified.
The current list identifies AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and OpenAI for hosting or inference, plus named support and operations providers. It distinguishes processing inside cloud infrastructure from inputs sent directly to OpenAI and states broad processing locations. The data agreement requires 30 days advance notice of a provider change, with 15 days for objections. No separate client consent or outside counsel AI disclosure template accompanies the legal suite.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Contract activity records the user, action, resource and timestamp. Review findings retain decisions, comments and source passages, and generated Word changes carry attribution and a review reference. Support can supply an organization wide activity export for a requested period. These records preserve parts of the work, but no document level export combines the exact model version, retrieved sources and human verification into a court disclosure record.
Workflows keep an audit trail of actions and decisions, and the AI terms require proportionate event logs retained for the agreement's duration. Important responses can carry a validation result or a request for review, with contract evidence behind the answer. The legal agreement also provides assistance to regulators. A per document export combining the exact model used, retrieved sources and a person's verification is not specified.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
Which one fits
Choose Clment if
- A small team needs a free entry plan and visible usage allowances.
- Reviewers want to select a negotiation strategy for each English language agreement.
- The required service terms prohibit training models on customer data.
Choose Luminance if
- Contract analysis needs to cover large portfolios and agreement relationships.
- Negotiation should connect with configured workflows and exception routing.
- The team wants staged answer validation and private learning within its contract arrangements.
In summary
Clment
Clment reviews English language agreements in a browser against customer rulebooks and three selectable negotiation strategies. Findings include source quotations and page references, and reviewers decide issues or supply their own wording. The AI Legal Index highlights the approval process for rulebook revisions, which separates a proposed change from the team's adopted position. Connections to OneDrive and Google Docs support editing copies and returning versions to the workspace. Free and paid subscriptions have defined user, contract and AI unit allowances. Clment's service terms prohibit using customer data to train models, while allowing the processing required to provide the service and separate aggregate analytics.
Luminance
Luminance combines negotiation, contract portfolio analysis and automated workflows. Its Negotiation product works with approved positions and comparable agreements, while Spotlight can analyze up to 10,000 contracts in a project. The AI Legal Index highlights Differential Validation's sequence of required checks, retries and human review when an answer cannot be verified. Workflows can advance under predefined conditions and send exceptions back to Legal. Luminance routes tasks among proprietary Luna models and other model providers, with controlled evaluation before releases. Its contract terms also allow private learning from customer data, with the resulting learning remaining the customer's confidential property. Subscription limits and hosting choices depend on the order form.
Questions buyers ask
How do the products control AI output?
Clment uses source references, explicit reviewer decisions and approved rulebook changes. Luminance's Differential Validation requires checks to pass, retries failed results and flags unresolved answers for review. Both retain a role for human judgment. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can they analyze a contract portfolio?
Both can hold and analyze contracts. Luminance describes Spotlight projects containing up to 10,000 contracts, including contextual analysis of related agreements. Clment's contract capacity depends on its plan and its review workflow uses customer rulebooks. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are their training terms the same?
No. Clment's terms prohibit training models on customer data. Luminance's master agreement permits private learning and service improvement, and treats the resulting customer learning as confidential property belonging to that customer. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are subscription prices directly comparable?
Clment has a free tier and paid plans with seat, contract and AI unit allowances. Luminance subscriptions use an order form, with contract terms addressing storage and document upload limits. Additional activity and the selected commercial agreement affect the comparison. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Both products support contract review and drafting. The comparison uses current product descriptions and legal terms without a hands on test. Neither vendor reviewed it. Clment's contracting entity is Contract Eagle Limited, which also offers a separate CLM product.