Aggregate drafting quality can conceal the omissions that matter most in complex legal work.
Capacity commitments and review requirements can pull against the time needed to verify subtle model behavior.
Who you’d be doing this for
“A polished draft that misses one instruction creates more work than a blank page.”
Charles Weber · Deputy General Counsel
Oversees high-volume commercial drafting for a global corporate legal department.
What is at stake
The new route matches the old one on aggregate scores, but dropped instructions in 8.2% of the long drafts reviewed. Your capacity reservation expires soon, so you weigh that timing against the lawyer review this needs.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- capacity deadline vs. verification depth
- aggregate quality vs. material instruction fidelity
- managed certainty vs. tailored evaluation
- automation evidence vs. lawyer sign-off
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this may matter because legal drafts are often assessed for both source support and adherence to matter-specific instructions.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 17 more at Harvey, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.