Nobody is asking you about the liability cap. They are asking why intake takes nine days.
Where it stalls, and why half of it still arrives as a direct message. Fix the intake, not the clauses.
Contract intake does not fail on features. It fails on adoption.
You have probably already rolled out a tool for this. It had a portal, it had a form, and within a month people were back to messaging the lawyer directly, because the portal was one more place to go and the message was already open.
Every workaround is somebody choosing the path of least resistance, and a process that depends on people choosing the harder path is a process that quietly stops being followed.
What changes
adoption designed out, not trained aroundOne queue, several front doors
A slash command in Slack, a file dropped into a Teams chat, or an email forwarded from any inbox, including by somebody with no access to your workspace at all.
There is nothing to adopt
It runs inside Slack or Teams, so there is no portal to drive people to and no training programme to justify. The failure mode you have lived through is designed out.
Review stops depending on who picked it up
Standards are configured once (governing law, term, liability, payment terms) and every submission is measured against the same ones. Upload a written playbook and it becomes the policy rather than a document nobody opens.
The chase disappears
Whoever submitted a contract can see its status themselves: submitted, in review, claimed by whom, decided. That alone removes most of the traffic your team currently absorbs.
The record is a by-product
Who decided, when, on which version, and what changed between rounds. Captured because it happened, not because somebody remembered to log it.
What you will not get, and it matters for you specifically
There is no analytics dashboard
You get a searchable register of every contract with its terms extracted, filterable by status, type, counterparty and date, and exportable to CSV. That is the raw material to measure cycle time, not a chart that measures it for you. If reporting is the thing you are judged on, know that going in.
This is not a CLM
No clause library, no obligation management, no procurement workflow. It is contract review, a register, and a record of decisions. If your remit covers the full lifecycle, this is a component of that, not a replacement for it.
A human decides everything. There is no auto-approval, on purpose. AI does the reading, the extraction, the comparison against your standards, and the first draft of the markup. It does not approve contracts. The speed comes from a reviewer arriving well-briefed, not from nobody looking, which also means the audit trail says a person decided, because one did.
Common questions
No. You get a searchable register with extracted terms, filterable and exportable to CSV: the raw material to measure cycle time yourself, not a chart that measures it for you. If reporting is what you are judged on, know that going in.
No. There is no clause library, no obligation management and no procurement workflow. It is contract review, a register and a record of decisions, a component of a lifecycle programme rather than a replacement for one.
By not asking them to go anywhere. Submission happens in Slack or Teams, or by forwarding an email from any inbox, so the path of least resistance is the one you want them on.