Practice note, June 20, 2025
Practice note: running a playbook that survives contact with sales
The problem
The short version: running a playbook that survives contact with sales is easier to get wrong than most teams assume, and the failure is usually silent.
In testing, the gap between a fast pass and a careful pass was not accuracy on the central question. It was whether the reviewer noticed the interaction with an adjacent provision.
What we do about it
We score against a human baseline drawn from executed matters rather than a synthetic set, because synthetic contracts do not contain the drafting scars that cause real misses.
In the current build this runs as part of the standard pass, so it applies to every document in the set rather than only the ones someone thought to check.
Where it breaks
Scanned originals with poor image quality remain the weakest input. So do agreements that were assembled from three precedents and never reconciled, which is common in long-lived supplier relationships.
If you take one thing from this, make it the habit of checking the adjacent provision before you sign off the clause in front of you.
Working notes from the Lawrs team. General information about legal technology and practice, not legal advice.