The setting
is an AI platform for legal work, used by law firms and the legal teams of companies. is its software that uses AI agents to draft, negotiate, review, and manage contracts.
A clear legal finding is not yet an answerable business decision.
Counsel need the contractual nuance preserved, while commercial owners need a choice they can act on.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I sent the liability redline yesterday, and the buyer replied, 'So are we good to sign?”
Aitor Fontana · Senior Commercial Counsel · a character in this brief
Reviews supplier agreements and asks business owners to accept or reject commercial tradeoffs.
What is at stake
Business owners needed another explanation for 11 of 18 contract decisions in discovery. You must choose what a new decision experience preserves, what it simplifies, and whether customers will return to it.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- commercial clarity vs legal nuance
- persistent decisions vs a focused document experience
- shared product behavior vs customer-specific authority
- requests sent vs answers counsel can apply
Why Harvey
Harvey for Word places agent-generated review beside the contract, but commercial decisions still leave the document as explanations counsel rewrite.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 52 more at Harvey, or browse every organization.
Where the organization context comes fromThe postings this brief was written from, and the reporting read before it.
The organization context comes from public information. The situation and characters are written for the brief.
Job postings it was written from
Public descriptions of the work at Harvey. They are listed as sources, not as openings. The lines under a posting are its own words, where it meets this brief.
- Senior Product Manager, Embedded Experiences (opens in a new tab)
- Own key embedded experiences in Harvey: Define the vision, strategy, and roadmap for Harvey for Word and the other drafting tools lawyers work in, taking problems from discovery through launch and iteration.
- Stay close to customers: Spend meaningful time with lawyers at law firms and in-house teams.
- Staff Product Manager, Agents (opens in a new tab)
- Keep the experience simple as Harvey’s capabilities expand, making deliberate decisions about what to surface, what to automate, and where users need control.
- Build experiences that help users edit, refine, and verify AI-generated work, making it easy to inspect supporting evidence and identify what needs closer review.
- Staff Product Manager (opens in a new tab)
- You will help architect systems to bring legal context into Harvey and also work with our Partnerships org and internal teams to prioritize which ones to build.
- API Product Lead (opens in a new tab)
- As the API Product Lead at Harvey, you'll own the strategy, roadmap, and execution for Harvey's APIs: the way law firms and in-house legal teams integrate with and build on top of Harvey’s platform.
- You'll balance new capabilities against the reliability, security, and scale that production builds on Harvey require.
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.
Where similar work appears
Other live briefs connected to this one, and what connects them.
Similar problems at other organizations
Like this one, each of these turns on committing to a deal before it checks out.
Five of eight payer deals contain requests beyond approved proposal language.
You decide whether AI drafts those requests as marked terms or leaves them as questions for the seller.
Sellers found conflicting buyer assumptions in eight of twelve Messaging deals marked ready for proposals.
You decide how a draft handles a country or volume figure when an Outreach email differs from the Salesforce record, and which differences go to the seller first.
The same setting, from another role
Each is set around Harvey’s Contracts, written for a different role. They’re separate briefs, not the same scenario.
Discovery details from Gong and Salesforce conflict on active enterprise opportunities.
You have to decide where the system's drafted fields and next steps hand over to the seller, so the record that reaches a proposal matches what legal, procurement and finance discussed.
Legal sponsors want to evaluate contract review, but procurement cannot see a bounded path to a budget decision.
You have to weigh a simpler commercial entry point against enough evidence to earn conversion.
A procurement committee will decide whether a 250-review monthly commitment is credible after counsel questioned proposed redlines.
You must weigh a controlled rollout against the contract volume Finance needs to approve spend.
Other problems with a similar purpose
In each of these, as in this one, the aim is using evidence and inquiry to uncover the true problem worth solving before committing craft or budget to an answer.
Evaluation customers can spot a journey drop-off but cannot connect it to a responsible technical surface.
You have to weigh a useful cross-product investigation against access, cost, and an understandable first workflow.
Higher-value home carts are leaving after shoppers see that Pay in 4 will not cover enough of the purchase.
You have to weigh incremental checkout completion against early repayment performance and merchant economics.
Hotel-search feedback points to several possible failures, so recurring traveler friction is not reaching one shared problem statement.
You must decide what AI groups, what PMs verify, and what evidence is strong enough to guide the next experiment.
