Documents and reporting · International teams
AI contract review assistance
Help reviewers locate clauses, compare versions and organise questions while keeping legal judgement with qualified people.
Understand the service
What this means in practice
AI contract review assistance can extract selected entities, locate relevant passages and prepare a comparison against an approved checklist. It can make the review material easier to navigate. It should not be presented as a legal opinion or as proof that every obligation and exception has been found.
Temrik can scope a workflow with the contract owner and, where appropriate, their legal adviser. The brief should specify document types, the checklist, source references and the decisions that remain with a qualified reviewer. Any proposed summary needs to preserve exceptions and surrounding wording, not just a convenient clause label.
- Microsoft: contract data extraction Entity extraction is distinct from legal interpretation.
- NIST: Generative AI Profile Guidance on generative AI risks and controls.
A practical workflow example
A procurement team compares a supplier’s revised agreement with the previous version. A proposed assistant prepares a table of changed passages and flags topics from the reviewer’s checklist. It links to the source text and marks missing schedules, leaving interpretation and negotiation decisions to the authorised reviewer.
Proposed engagement
How we would approach the work
Set the review boundary
Choose a document family and an approved checklist. Identify the qualified reviewer and what the tool must never decide on its own.
Preserve clause evidence
Capture page or section references, document versions and relevant surrounding text. Distinguish extraction from interpretation.
Test omissions and changes
Include missing schedules, cross-references, scanned pages and altered exceptions. Evaluate what the system misses, not only the quality of its summary.
Deliverables to agree in the scope
- A bounded review checklist and source-reference format.
- A proposed clause and version comparison workflow.
- An evaluation record of omissions, incorrect matches and required human checks.
Access, sample information and reviewer availability affect the plan. Any implementation, provider costs, support arrangements and acceptance criteria are agreed before work begins.
Limits worth understanding
- This is workflow and information assistance, not legal advice.
- A complete-looking summary can omit a material clause; professional review remains necessary.
Questions to bring to the first conversation
- Which checklist has the reviewer approved?
- Can every finding be traced to the exact version?
- How are missing schedules and ambiguous terms surfaced?
International teams
Scope the work for your operating context.
For contracts spanning jurisdictions, record the governing-law clause and relevant entities as source facts without asking the model to resolve their legal effect. Engage qualified advisers for the jurisdictions and issues that the review actually involves.
A starting reference for your review: NIST: AI Risk Management Framework. Local obligations and deployment settings need to be assessed for the actual use case.
A focused next step
Work with Temrik.
Tell us about the workflow you want to improve and the outcome you need. We can review the context and discuss a focused assessment. Scope and price are agreed before paid work begins.