Surface material edits before release
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.
“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 pulls against what
- 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
What is at stake
A reviewer who cannot distinguish generated text from later edits cannot give meaningful approval. The release decision is difficult to unwind once shared review behavior is established
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter because drafting workflows often depend on a lawyer retaining clear judgment over reviewed work.
Written for
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.