Review becomes fragile when generated text and human edits begin to look alike.
Speed favors compact signals, while legal judgment depends on seeing what materially changed.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I can’t approve this if I’m guessing which wording was changed after the draft landed.”
Bibi Kassa · Deputy General Counsel
Approves high-impact contract and policy language produced through a team review process.
What is at stake
In pre-release testing, only 61% could tell a generated clause from one they had materially edited under time pressure. You settle the review states now, because the release is hard to unwind once reviewers learn it.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- review speed vs. informed approval
- compact signals vs. material-change clarity
- automation triage vs. attorney judgment
- web parity vs. Word-native behavior
- release commitment vs. validation rigor
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter because drafting workflows often depend on a lawyer retaining clear judgment over reviewed work.
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.