P
Precisely
Precisely is a contract lifecycle management platform from Precisely AB of Gothenburg, Sweden, not to be confused with the American data integrity company of the same name. Its site is preciselycontracts.com, and the older precisely.se address redirects there. It automates contracting from drafting through approval, electronic signature and archiving, for legal departments and for business teams such as sales and procurement.
The company says more than 500 companies use it, among them Adverity, Flaconi and the British Council. Precisely AI extracts metadata such as values, dates and terms from uploaded contracts, summarizes key clauses and obligations, and highlights risks or deviations in third party agreements, and administrators can switch it on or off by role. By default it runs on Azure OpenAI within the EU. The platform connects to CRM systems such as Salesforce and HubSpot, supports sixteen electronic signature and identity providers, and offers single sign on. Pricing is per user license, quoted on request.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. 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.
The models speed up intake and search on a contract lifecycle system that would function without them. Template drafting, conditional approvals and electronic signature make up most of the platform, and none of them depends on a model. Precisely AI is listed as one component among these. It extracts metadata such as values, dates and terms from uploaded contracts, summarizes key clauses and obligations, and flags risks or deviations in third party agreements.
Its use is optional, role based and fully configurable: administrators can enable it, disable it or opt out entirely, and the AI supplementary terms let a customer deactivate it through support. The results customers describe come from the drafting and approval engine, which runs without the AI.
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.
Beyond a disclaimer, nothing describes how the extractions and summaries are grounded or how accurate they are. The AI page shows screenshots of suggested metadata and summaries, and does not say whether a suggestion links to the clause it came from or what the user sees to check it. No accuracy figure, test, error rate or account of the extraction method is published. The AI supplementary terms say Precisely cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information obtained through AI functions, and advise users not to rely solely on factual assertions in the output without independently verifying them.
That is a limitation rather than a description of grounding, on a product that summarizes obligations and flags risks in contracts a company is about to sign. Pages checked include the AI page, the contract intelligence page and the security page.
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.
The AI makes suggestions that administrators can switch off, and no review step is described. The AI page presents extracted metadata and summaries as suggestions, and verification is advised in the AI terms rather than built into any described step. Nothing published says whether an extracted value or summary must be confirmed by a person before it becomes contract metadata, whether reminders and reports run on unconfirmed values, or how a user checks a suggestion against the document.
Nor does anything say what happens when a summary misses an obligation. The approval workflows the platform is known for govern contracts a company drafts from its own templates. Whether the AI's risk flags on third party agreements feed into those approvals or sit beside them is not said.
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 customers and named people stand behind the figures, and none of the results is attributed to the AI. The Adverity case quotes Fiona Konetzky, vice president of legal and compliance. It reports that half the company's contracts need no legal input, turnaround 25 times faster and an 80 percent cut in processing time, across more than 70 users in more than ten departments. Those results are attributed to templates, access roles, conditional approvals and electronic signature.
The home page cites NA-KD cutting NDA setup from ten minutes to under two, and lists Balder, which manages about a thousand companies, and ecosio, which handles more than 500 contracts a year. Three further cases are published. None carries a publication date or a measurement method, and none attributes a result to Precisely AI.
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 agreement licenses customer content for the vendor's own research and development, which reaches further than the product page's promise on training. Section 11.3 of the terms of service grants Precisely the right to reproduce, modify, display and distribute the customer's content as needed to perform the services and for its own purposes, such as service improvement, research and development. No anonymization or time limit is stated.
The AI supplementary terms add that Precisely may use aggregated and anonymized AI generated content and usage metrics to improve the service. Both parties are bound to keep confidential information confidential. Where the license and the marketing differ, the agreement governs. Privilege, work product and separation between customers are not addressed.
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.
Nothing in the service is legal advice, the terms say, and nothing tells the non lawyers it is built for when to call legal in. The terms of service state that nothing in the services is intended or shall be interpreted as legal advice, and that Precisely undertakes no responsibility for the legal outcome of using them. The product is sold to sales, procurement and other business teams as well as legal departments, and its central promise for them is contracting without legal.
The contract intelligence page quotes a customer saying that sometimes legal does not need to be involved at all. That works through templates and approval rules the legal team controls, a real supervision structure. Nothing published tells a non lawyer reading an AI summary or risk flag on a third party contract when to bring legal in. No page says which jurisdictions the templates or the AI support.
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.
Where the AI runs is published, and how it is controlled is not. The AI supplementary terms deal with providers, processing location and output ownership, and the AI page with data handling and the administrator switch. Those are data protection and contract subjects rather than governance. Nothing published names who inside Precisely is accountable for the AI's behavior, or describes testing before an AI feature ships.
No position is set out under the EU AI Act, though the provider is Swedish and sells across Europe. Nothing reports how extraction and summary quality varies across languages, contract types or jurisdictions. The sitemap shows no trust center or responsible AI page. Seven pages were checked, among them the AI page, the AI supplementary terms and the data processing agreement.
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.
Subprocessors, breaches and deletion are all covered by firm contractual commitments, and retention while the subscription runs is the gap. The data processing agreement, updated 22 June 2025, lists three subprocessors with purpose and location, one of them the model host. It commits Precisely to written notice at least thirty days before a subprocessor is added or replaced, and to notice of a personal data breach within 24 hours.
Audits are allowed on reasonable request, and personal data is deleted or returned at the end of the contract. Those terms can be held against the vendor. How long material is kept before that point is not stated.
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.
Liability is capped and infringement is defended, while AI accuracy is disclaimed. The terms of service, updated 3 June 2025 under Swedish law, limit each party's total liability in a calendar year to the fees the customer paid in the twelve months before the damage occurred. They also commit Precisely to defend the customer against claims that its use of the services infringes or misappropriates a third party's intellectual property.
The AI supplementary terms disclaim the accuracy of AI output and exclude AI downtime from the service level calculations. Section 17.2 lets Precisely change the terms on thirty days' notice, with a fifteen day window to terminate. A missed obligation in an AI summary is therefore the customer's loss, while platform failures can be recovered up to a year's fees. No warranty on AI output and no insurance statement are published.
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.
Integrations reach the CRM, email and identity systems a company already uses, and each is named with its purpose and no further depth. Salesforce and HubSpot let users draft contracts without leaving the CRM. Outlook supports drafting from an email and its attachments, calendars carry reminders, Teams and Slack carry notifications, and Zapier reaches other apps. A Precisely API is documented at api.precisely.se. Sixteen electronic signature and identity providers are supported, among them Docusign, Scrive and BankID, and single sign on runs through providers such as Entra ID, Okta and Google.
Custom integrations are built on request. What each CRM integration moves in each direction, whether signed contracts or metadata are written back, and what must be configured are not described, and the API documentation was not read. No document management connection such as SharePoint or iManage is listed.
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.
Storage and AI processing locations are published separately, with options, and tenancy is not. Under the data processing agreement, uploaded files sit in Amazon S3 in Dublin, the platform database on Google Cloud in Frankfurt and the language model on Azure OpenAI in Sweden. The default AI setup processes all data within the EU, a United States option is available on request, and the AI page adds that a customer can bring its own key.
The security page mentions custom hosting to meet local regulatory requirements and support for regional data hosting, without naming the regions or what changes. Whether customers share infrastructure or are separated at the database or account level is not stated. Unless a company asks otherwise, its contracts and the AI processing stay in the EU.
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.
The certifications on the security page belong to the hosting facilities, and no attestation of Precisely itself is published. The page says the server infrastructure is hosted in SSAE 16 and ISO 27001 certified facilities. That describes the data centers of the cloud providers rather than Precisely's own information security management. No ISO 27001 certificate, SOC 2 report, auditor, scope, date or trust center for Precisely AB was found on the security page, the home page, the sitemap or the legal pages.
What the page does describe is controls: TLS encryption with named cipher suites, continuous backups replicated across data centers, and two factor authentication with single sign on. A contractual audit right sits in the data processing agreement. There is no independent attestation of the vendor for a security reviewer to examine.
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 model providers and their locations are named, the models are not, and a change of provider comes with contractual notice. The AI supplementary terms of 13 May 2025 name Azure OpenAI in the EU as the default provider and OpenAI in the United States as an option on request. The subprocessor notice period in the data processing agreement covers a change of model provider. The AI page shows an IBM Watson Natural Language Understanding logo without saying what it does.
Which models are deployed, such as which GPT model runs in Azure, is not published. Nor is whether Watson is part of the current extraction, or whether a version change inside the same provider triggers any notice.
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 charging unit is clear and the price is not. A license covers one full user, with viewers cheaper and add ons and services charged separately. Yet no price, currency, plan name, minimum term or add on list appears on the pricing page, the home page or the terms of service, and the pricing page sends buyers to book a demo or contact sales. Cost therefore scales with full users rather than with contracts or viewers, and the total cannot be estimated before a sales conversation.
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.
Coverage is described by department, and the limits are not. Solution pages address legal departments and five business functions, from sales and procurement to finance. The legal department page and customer cases describe in house legal teams setting templates and approval rules so other departments can contract on their own. Published customers span software, real estate, retail and education. The signature and identity providers concentrate on the Nordic countries and Germany, the governing law is Swedish, and data stays in the EU by default, which together place the product in a northern European market without saying so.
Nothing states which languages the templates and AI work in, which contract types and governing laws the AI's summaries and risk flags are built for, or whether law firms are a supported segment.
7 public documents
The public pages on file for Precisely, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
Client Data in Training, Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Good Law Verification and 1 more
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Prompt and Output Retention, Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
preciselycontracts.com/legal/dpa1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
preciselycontracts.com/security1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Oct 2, 2026
No published figure
- Precisely does not show its prices.
- You pay for each person who uses the full platform.
- People who only need to view contracts cost less.
- Extra features and setup help cost extra.
- You ask for a quote after a demo.
Charging is per user license, and each license gives full, unlimited access to the platform. Access for people who only view contracts costs less. Advanced options are sold as add ons. Dropbox Sign is included in all plans. Prices are given on request after a demo.
Implementation: Professional services are offered as consultancy packages; no price is stated.
Note: No figure, currency, plan name or minimum term is published. Whether Precisely AI is included in the license or sold as an add on is not stated.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
Training on customer data is ruled out on the product page, and the agreement's improvement right never mentions training. The AI page says Precisely never uses customer data to train or fine tune AI models. The AI terms add that Azure OpenAI and OpenAI do not use submitted data or output to train, retrain or improve their foundation models. The research and development license in the terms of service covers service improvement without naming training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Only the optional United States model provider has a stated retention period. Under the AI supplementary terms, data sent to OpenAI in the United States, available on request, may be stored for up to 30 days. No period is stated for the default Azure OpenAI setup in the EU, or for prompts and outputs kept in the platform.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Granular user and team permissions and role based access are asserted on the security page, with no published detail on how contract visibility is restricted. Nothing read describes separation between customers or restriction of individual contracts.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
Prompt written notice is committed before any disclosure the law requires. The terms of service allow either party to disclose the other's confidential information if required by law, as long as the other party is told promptly in writing before the disclosure. Section 6.4 of the data processing agreement requires Precisely to inform the customer of a required disclosure of personal data to supervisory authorities. No transparency report was located.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
The product works on the customer's own contracts and templates and does not retrieve primary law; no outside corpus behind its answers is identified. Checked the AI and contract intelligence pages on 2 October 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
The product does not cite case law or statutes, so no check of subsequent history applies, and none is described. Checked the AI and contract intelligence pages on 2 October 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
What the AI does when it cannot support an extraction or summary is not described in any material located. The accuracy disclaimer in the AI terms is not an abstention path or a confidence signal. Checked the AI page, the contract intelligence page and the AI supplementary terms on 2 October 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Precisely as the source of fabricated authority was located as of 2 October 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the name and returned no cases. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The only reference to professional standards is the general no legal advice clause in the terms of service. No bar opinion, ethics guidance or professional conduct rule is named on any page read.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
Companies buy the platform for their own legal, sales, procurement and other teams, and none of those teams bills a client for the work. The published results are savings to the buyer's own cost. No law firm segment or law firm customer was located.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.
The subprocessor list, the data processing agreement and the AI specific terms are all published, with no agreement needed to read them. The list names the model provider, and the AI terms set out providers, processing locations and the providers' training position.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Court disclosure and records of AI assisted work go unaddressed. The product serves company contracting rather than filings, and nothing read describes recording which model produced a summary or what a person verified. Checked the AI, contract intelligence and security pages on 2 October 2026.