Transactional review is a comparison problem before it is a drafting problem. Get the terms into a form you can compare, and the negotiation position becomes visible.
Transactional intelligence should end in language a lawyer can negotiate.
Extract the terms that matter across a set of agreements, compare them against the position the practice actually takes, and move the findings into draft language. Every extracted value keeps the passage it came from, so a finding can be checked rather than trusted.
Compare, rather than re-read
The work of reading twenty agreements to answer one question is retrieval. It should be done once, in a form you can inspect.
Define the terms that matter
Set the questions for the deal — change of control, assignment, liability cap, notice, governing law — once for the whole set.
One table across the set
Apply the definition to every agreement in scope and get comparable answers rather than separate readings.
The original language stays
Each value records the passage it came from, so the normalized answer never replaces the text that produced it.
Visible processing state
Each document's state is shown, so a partial run is never mistaken for a complete review.
Against the position, not in the abstract
A deviation only matters relative to what the practice was trying to achieve.
Private playbooks
Write the positions the practice takes — acceptable, fallback, unacceptable — and version them as the market moves.
Precedent under your control
Upload the forms and precedent the draft should follow, kept private to your account.
Deliberate application
Choose which playbook governs a given review rather than relying on an automatic guess.
Revisable positions
Playbooks carry versions and archival, so a change in position has a history.
Into draft language
A findings table is an intermediate product. The deliverable is language that can go back across the table.
Draft from the finding
Move a flagged deviation into proposed language in the editor rather than into a separate list nobody drafts from.
Proposals you control
Suggested language arrives as an accept/reject proposal beside your text, not merged into it.
Issue lists and summaries
Produce the client-facing summary or the internal issue list from the same reviewed record.
Export to Word
Take the draft into a real DOCX for the mark-up chain the deal already runs on.
IN PRACTICE
The work lawyers bring to it.
Diligence across a data set
Identify which agreements carry change-of-control or anti-assignment provisions and what each one requires.
Portfolio liability review
Compare limitation-of-liability and indemnity terms across a group of contracts and find the uncapped ones.
First-pass mark-up
Move deviations from the house position into proposed language for a supervising attorney to weigh.
Benchmark a counterparty's paper
Compare the other side's form against the positions the practice normally holds.
Closing set check
Confirm each document in a closing set contains what it is supposed to, and surface the ones that do not.
HOW THE WORK MOVES
A visible record from input to review.
01Load agreements
02Extraction and passages
03Define the terms
04Run the comparison
05Draft language
06Attorney review
IN THE WORKSPACE TODAY
What you can use now.
Not yet available: Word redlines and tracked changes; Bulk ingestion from a deal room or DMS; Firm-wide playbook governance.
Structured clause review across documents
Defined question sets with exact-passage grounding.
Live
Private playbooks and precedent
Owner-scoped authoring, versioning and archival.
Live
Drafting with accept/reject proposals
Suggested language is never merged without a decision.
Live
DOCX export
Real Word output with legal layout.
Live
Astra for Law
Legal model integration coming soon
◆
PRIVATE BETA
Keep the research visible. Keep the document yours.