Long read, April 26, 2026
how review quality is actually measured in the wild
The problem
Every review team we work with has a version of this problem. How review quality is actually measured in the wild rarely announces itself.
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 treat anything the system cannot ground in source text as unverified and show it as such. A visible gap is cheaper than a confident error.
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.
The practical takeaway is narrow: write the exception down, point it at a source, and give it an owner.
Working notes from the Lawrs team. General information about legal technology and practice, not legal advice.