In contract management, review means critically analyzing the information present in a contract. This information when migrated into a CLM can actually cause a lot of trouble if not properly vetted or clarified. Most of the software solutions run on predefined algorithms and at times fail to recognize errors which might have occurred a) at the time of the drafting of a contract or b) while converting the scanned documents into text-based OCR documents, resulting in faulty abstraction and migration of data.

So, what does review of extracted results mean to you, just checking the underlined clause as a standalone section or checking all the relevant information related to that clause?

For instance, for a contract with contract execution date as May 6, 2017 with a fixed term of two years, if the expiration date is mentioned incorrectly as May 5, 2018. A software which checks all the attributes independent of each other will pick the expiration date as May 5, 2018 only. Even the manual extraction can go wrong if the analyst is just picking the information without reviewing the whole document.

Typically, a software will do the first level of extraction of data-points from the contracts.  Then a team checks the results.  “Review” has connotations of spot-checking.  That will NOT lead to any accurate results of extraction.

Brightleaf’s stringent process which is embedded in the software AND the lawyers who check the output, makes them verify EACH-AND-EVERY data element against the original document.  This is the ONLY way to get highly accurate results.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>