Long contracts expose a conflict between complete context and a review lawyers will wait for.
The agent needs enough contract and playbook context to support citations, while counsel need findings before a negotiation moves on.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I had the contract open in Word for ten minutes, then I just started marking it myself.”
Nina Horak · Senior Commercial Counsel
Reviews supplier and customer agreements for an enterprise legal department under active negotiation deadlines.
What is at stake
Reviews for contracts over 80 pages are arriving after counsel has started manual markup. You have to weigh smaller context and caching against citation-backed playbook findings.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- complete context vs. review speed
- cache reuse vs. matter isolation
- fast findings vs. citation coverage
- shared capacity vs. long-contract depth
Why Harvey
Harvey in Word depends on proposed findings arriving while lawyers are still working in the contract.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 20 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.