Field guide, August 1, 2026
Field guide: reading a cap table against the underlying grants
The problem
We keep coming back to reading a cap table against the underlying grants, because the cost of a miss here compounds across a portfolio.
The usual approach is to read for the obvious form of the issue and move on. That catches the clean cases. It misses the ones where the operative language sits somewhere other than where you expect, which in a negotiated document is most of the time.
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.