ContractKen vs Luminance: how they compare in 2026
Luminance is a closer match for an organization linking negotiation to a large contract portfolio and delegated business workflows. Its model checks and retry process add a defined route back to human review, while its data agreement specifies incident notice and deletion handling. ContractKen is more concentrated on drafting and reviewing the current Word agreement, with detailed playbook boundaries and local masking as a separate privacy mechanism. The subscription units differ. Luminance's quoted allowance counts files and versions in the system, whereas ContractKen offers standard per user review access. Both describe learning or improvement from customer material within stated limits, so private processing should not be confused with a blanket training prohibition. The choice is between portfolio centered contract operations and a narrower lawyer centered drafting and review workflow.
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.
Models classify clauses, compare negotiation positions, explain deviations and generate contract drafts or proposed edits. The current pipeline combines language inference, entity recognition, retrieval from approved material and generative models selected for the task. These functions are central to the review and drafting work. The Word application also retains useful nonmodel components: a shared clause library, playbook administration, formatting checks and reference validation. Users can organize approved language and maintain negotiation standards alongside the AI analysis. ContractKen thus joins model driven legal work to an established editing and knowledge workflow, rather than treating every formatting or storage operation as artificial intelligence.
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.
Review findings connect to the relevant contract passage, and generated explanations draw on the customer's playbooks, clause library and prior agreements. Retrieval preserves section structure, definitions and cross references instead of splitting text without that context. Drafted clauses identify whether they came from a precedent, approved library language or a playbook requirement. Low confidence suggestions are flagged for review. The models undergo internal classification tests before deployment, but current numerical results, a reproducible test set and error rates for generated legal conclusions are not specified. A research result about similar legal models is separate from ContractKen's production accuracy.
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.
Playbook Driven Review checks preferred, fallback and walkaway positions; Comprehensive Review provides an alternative when no organizational playbook exists. Risk sensitivity can be adjusted, and the playbook framework distinguishes deviations that require escalation to a partner. Reviewers navigate to the exact clause, inspect an explanation and approve, modify or reject a proposed change. No edit enters the agreement without explicit human approval. Drafts receive a playbook compliance report before use, and administrators control who can change the playbook itself. These controls separate automatic analysis from the lawyer's decision about the final language and the route for an unacceptable negotiating position.
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.
Named practitioners describe using ContractKen in contract work. Aseet Patel, a lawyer and legal technology founder, uses it for agreements and term sheets before sending work to outside counsel for final review. Sharon Zachariah, an innovation lawyer and former partner, describes using it after drafting or reviewing client contracts. These accounts identify people and actual tasks, but give no dated baseline or measurement method. Separate drafting illustrations promise substantial reductions in time to a first draft, and the review calculator estimates savings from assumed workloads. Those illustrations do not establish measured outcomes for either named practitioner or the current AI pipeline.
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 security commitments treat content as confidential work product, restrict staff access to necessary support under confidentiality obligations and separate customer tenants with individual encryption keys. The Moderation Layer masks sensitive text locally, offers a preview and validates the sanitized version before external model processing. Public or shared model training is excluded in the security FAQ, while the architecture also describes controlled feedback learning and private customization. The general terms reserve content review for service improvement. Retention and purge controls exist, but internal matter walls and a consistent contractual training restriction are not established across these different surfaces.
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.
The terms distinguish ContractKen from a law firm or attorney and state that its information is not legal advice. They direct people needing advice to a licensed lawyer and do not create a professional relationship with the vendor. The product reinforces supervision through source inspection, playbook controls and required approval of generated changes. Its confidentiality explanation also engages with lawyers' duties under ABA Formal Opinion 512. Standard clauses include common law jurisdiction notes, but that coverage does not define a complete set of professional practice limits. The trial audience includes people who are not lawyers as well as legal teams.
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.
ContractKen describes a controlled model update process using feedback from accepted, modified and rejected suggestions. Those signals are aggregated and reviewed before supervised retraining, rather than changing the model instantly after each user action. Updated models face held out tests using precision, recall and F1 measures; performance must remain stable or improve before release. Administrators can also restrict sensitive information through redaction rules. This is a concrete development and release framework. A named person accountable for AI governance, current test results and findings about uneven performance across jurisdictions, contract types or groups are not specified.
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.
Administrators can request an immediate purge of contracts, prompts, logs and backups. Operational logs normally remain for 30 days, with a contractual option to set that period to zero. Enterprise controls include single sign on, administrator multifactor authentication and permissions for playbook uploads, draft review and data export. Staff access is restricted and logged. The security FAQ states continuous monitoring and material incident notification within 72 hours or a faster legal deadline. A complete current subprocessor register and the DPA require a request, and the default retention period for application prompts and generated output is not separately stated.
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.
The public terms disclaim accuracy, completeness and noninfringement warranties and cap aggregate liability at the greater of $100 or fees paid in the preceding 12 months. Exceptions concern death, property damage or injury from gross negligence, and fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. Customers indemnify ContractKen for specified claims. The security FAQ offers a stronger position, including an IP indemnity, performance warranty, cyber and professional insurance and different liability exceptions. Paid customers may instead have an Enterprise Services Agreement, whose text is not available here. Those stronger commitments therefore do not clearly replace the default terms for every subscriber.
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.
The Word add in reads the active agreement chosen by the user, rather than scanning other files or email. Review findings navigate to the underlying clause. Approved suggestions return through Office.js as ordinary tracked changes with explanatory comments, and the privacy mapping restores original names and values. Users supply their playbooks, precedents and clause language, then review output within the same document. Standard setup requires Microsoft Word and includes onboarding support. Integrations with systems such as iManage belong to the separately quoted custom workflow offer; they are distinct from the detailed, standard Word editing connection.
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.
The standard service combines a Word add in with a hosted analysis pipeline. Sensitive entities can be replaced locally before sanitized text reaches ContractKen's servers and external AI providers. Primary hosting is on AWS, with European Union or United States residency available on request. Regulated teams can obtain private inference in their own Azure tenant or virtual private cloud, and enterprise customers can supply an endpoint. These options distinguish local preparation from remote analysis. Exact cloud regions, the location of every provider's processing and the configuration or price differences between residency choices are not specified.
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.
ContractKen describes SOC 2 Type II certification as in progress and its controls as aligned with ISO 27001 and ISO 27701. The security FAQ also mentions a report under a nondisclosure agreement, without identifying a completed audit period or service scope. Encryption, tenant isolation, administrator authentication, annual independent penetration testing and customer audit access are separate operating controls. Penetration test summaries and a security paper are available on request. Its own certification remains unfinished, without a dated independent audit, a named auditor or a defined assurance scope covering the ContractKen service.
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.
The architecture identifies DeBERTa for clause classification and natural language inference, plus spaCy and custom entity types for recognition. Generative models handle explanations and edits after retrieval from approved material. The security FAQ names OpenAI and Google as example API providers, while enterprise customers can bring their own endpoint. Routing selects models by task and can change as performance improves. Exact generative model families, versions and processing regions are not specified. The 30 day notice commitment concerns material changes to data handling or service levels, rather than every substitution of a model in the pipeline.
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.
The standard Word subscription costs $149 per user per month on monthly billing or $119 with annual billing. It has no minimum seat requirement and includes unlimited review and redlining, a clause library, playbooks, formatting, onboarding and training. A guided trial lasts 14 days, and cancellations or seat reductions can receive a prorated refund. Custom AI and workflow projects use a quoted proof of concept lasting eight to 12 weeks, including usage and customization. Standard installation is included; custom implementation support is also described as included, but the project fee and enterprise deployment price are not stated.
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.
Law firms and internal legal teams can review commercial agreements, draft from prior transactions and maintain shared negotiation language. Examples include nondisclosure, service, software, employment, supply, lease and acquisition agreements. Prebuilt clauses cover common law jurisdictions including the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, with jurisdiction notes and tags for custom language. Separate playbooks can serve different teams, contract types or jurisdictions. Multilingual review is described broadly, but a tested language matrix and unsupported practice boundaries are not specified. The product centers on transactional drafting and negotiation; its clause guidance does not establish a general legal research or litigation service.
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?
Section 8 permits review or editing of content for "operating and improving the Service" without a model training exclusion. The security FAQ excludes training public or shared models, while the architecture describes aggregated lawyer feedback used in controlled retraining and private customization. Another statement says no customer data trains models. The Enterprise Services Agreement may supersede the general terms, but its training clause is not available in the public agreement.
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?
Administrators may request immediate deletion of contracts, prompts, logs and backups. The security FAQ gives operational logs a 30 day default and allows that period to be set contractually to zero. It does not separately define a default window for application prompts or generated answers. The privacy policy's period after account termination concerns personal information and does not establish how long AI interactions remain during active use.
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?
Customer tenants are logically separated and use individual encryption keys. Enterprise roles control who uploads playbooks, reviews drafts or exports information, and shared precedents are available to authorized team members. These controls separate organizations and administrative activities. A permission model that divides opposing matters within one firm, or carries a connected document system's ethical walls into retrieval at query time, is not specified in the standard Word workflow.
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 terms allow ContractKen to preserve or share information when reasonably necessary for legal process, law enforcement and protection of rights or safety. The privacy policy also permits disclosures in response to legal requirements. Neither sets out advance customer notice for a subpoena, a process for challenging a request or a transparency report. The separate security incident notice commitment concerns breaches and does not supply a legal demand notification policy.
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?
Review and drafting use the customer's playbooks, clause library and prior agreements. ContractKen also supplies a library of commercial clauses and describes bundled language as authored internally, licensed or drawn from public domain material. Individual external sources and their rights are not listed, nor is an update schedule for a primary law corpus. Jurisdiction notes and refreshed sample language support drafting without establishing a comprehensive collection of legal authority.
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?
ContractKen can flag a precedent that no longer matches the team's current playbook and replace language from the approved clause library. It also traces generated clauses to their inputs. These checks concern contract standards and provenance, rather than the subsequent treatment of a judicial decision. A commercial citator connection, a method for checking whether authority has been overruled or an inline legal status warning is not specified.
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?
The interface flags low confidence suggestions and gives reviewers supporting sources, explanations and control over proposed edits. Playbook thresholds identify unacceptable negotiating positions and can send those issues to a partner. That escalation is about contract risk rather than unsupported answers. An explicit refusal response when retrieval cannot support a generated conclusion, or a published demonstration of the system declining such a question, is not described.
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 has no entry naming ContractKen as the tool behind fabricated legal citations as of October 15, 2026. Its stated work centers on contract drafting, clause review and proposed Word edits, with the lawyer approving changes. This court record concerns one specific kind of incident; it does not establish an error rate for those tasks or validate the accuracy of the current models.
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 Moderation Layer explanation addresses ABA Formal Opinion 512 and connects its confidentiality duties to local masking, user previews and logs of external AI requests. It discusses informed consent and also references several state bars, the SRA and the CCBE. It does not map the product to named opinions in multiple jurisdictions. These statements explain ContractKen's approach; they do not guarantee privilege or establish that every deployment satisfies a lawyer's duties.
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?
The privacy workflow logs who triggered AI analysis, what information went to which provider and when. Enterprise administrators can export document activity and enable prompt history exports, while Word preserves accepted edits and comments. These records identify parts of the assisted work performed on an agreement. ContractKen also markets shorter drafting and review times, but gives no corresponding guidance on recording billable hours, charging clients or disclosing the effect of those savings.
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?
ContractKen offers a DPA, current subprocessor register, security paper, data flow diagram and insurance certificates on request. Some assurance materials require a nondisclosure agreement. Its public security FAQ explains tenant separation, model provider restrictions and purge options, but is not a complete provider list or a client consent package. A firm can begin its assessment from those commitments, while the detailed materials for a client's AI requirements require direct contact.
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?
Anonymized versions and interaction logs preserve the information sent to AI providers, while drafting identifies source clauses and Word retains accepted edits. Administrators can export activity logs and prompt history. These provide pieces of an explanation of how an agreement was produced. A single export tying each generated passage to the exact model version, retrieved sources and a named human verification step for a court certification is not specified.
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 ContractKen if
- The primary task is drafting and revising the current Word agreement with explicit negotiating limits.
- Local removal and later restoration of sensitive terms is a useful addition to the review process.
- You prefer a standard per user review subscription to an allowance based on the files and versions stored in a portfolio.
Choose Luminance if
- Negotiation should draw on related contracts and feed a continuing portfolio analysis and business workflow.
- You want a described sequence of independent model checking, retries and human review for important outputs.
- The agreement needs specific deletion and incident handling provisions as part of a larger hosted deployment.
In summary
ContractKen
ContractKen's main working surface is the Word agreement being drafted or negotiated. A lawyer can choose firm playbook review or broader clause analysis, then inspect proposed edits, comments and source references. The AI Legal Index identifies its combination of explicit negotiation limits and Surgical Redlines as a way to keep suggested changes close to the lawyer's instructions. The Moderation Layer adds configurable local masking before model processing, with restoration of the original terms afterwards. Standard Review has a public per user price and unlimited review. Private enterprise inference is also available, but the standard agreement's improvement rights and limited recourse remain distinct from its stronger enterprise marketing promises.
Luminance
Luminance combines Word negotiation with portfolio analysis and contract workflows for legal and business teams. It uses approved positions, previous concessions and related agreements to propose changes, while Spotlight examines larger collections. The AI Legal Index identifies its independent model checks as a distinctive control: an important output must pass the required checks, with a failed result retried and then flagged for human review if necessary. Its architecture combines specialized Luna Crescent models with external models by task. The standard hosted service isolates customer workloads on AWS. Pricing is quoted against contracted file allowances, counting versions separately, and the agreement permits confidential customer specific private learning.
Questions buyers ask
How does Luminance check an important generated result?
Its architecture can use independent model agreement or a separate critic grounded in the source contract. Required checks must pass. Failed work is retried with feedback and then flagged for review if the problem persists. That procedure is more specific than a general instruction to keep a human involved. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does Luminance count for its subscription allowance?
Files held in the product count toward the contracted allowance, and a separate version counts as another file. Annual uploads are subject to a fair use ceiling of twice that allowance, irrespective of later deletion. The numerical subscription fee is set in the order form. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are private learning and private inference the same thing?
No. Private learning concerns how customer material improves a customer specific system. Private inference concerns where processing runs. Luminance's agreement permits private learning, and ContractKen offers private inference while retaining improvement permissions in its standard terms. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which is designed around a larger contract repository?
Luminance's Spotlight and workflow offerings make portfolio analysis a central part of its broader service. ContractKen focuses its standard offering on Word review and drafting, with a clause library and configured playbooks supporting that work. These are different starting points for a contracting project. 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.
Luminance and ContractKen did not review this comparison. Luminance's confidential private learning is governed by its agreement; ContractKen's enterprise promises require the applicable enterprise terms.