Skip to main content

What you’ll build

You’ll build an intelligent document compliance workflow that analyzes contracts and legal documents against your compliance policies, flags issues, and generates structured review reports. The system uses RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) to ground compliance checks in your actual policies and optionally leverages private models for sensitive documents that never leave your infrastructure. This workflow demonstrates how to:
  • Analyze contracts for compliance with company policies and regulations
  • Use parallel agents for comprehensive document analysis
  • Implement RAG for accurate compliance policy lookup
  • Deploy private models for sensitive legal documents
  • Build human-in-the-loop approval for flagged documents
  • Generate structured compliance reports with clear audit trails

What the system analyzes

Document types:
  • Vendor contracts and MSAs (Master Service Agreements)
  • Customer agreements and SLAs
  • Employment contracts
  • NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements)
  • Data Processing Agreements (DPAs)
  • Partnership agreements
  • License agreements
Compliance checks:
  • Company policy compliance (payment terms, liability limits, IP rights)
  • Regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, SOX, industry-specific)
  • Standard clause requirements
  • Risk assessment (financial, legal, operational)
  • Missing or non-standard clauses

Prerequisites

Before you begin, ensure you have:
  • MagOneAI instance with workflow builder and knowledge base
  • Compliance policy documents:
    • Company contract standards
    • Regulatory guidelines (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.)
    • Standard clause libraries
    • Approved clause language templates
    • Risk assessment frameworks
  • LLM provider configured:
    • Cloud option: GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet (for non-sensitive documents)
    • Private option: Self-hosted model (Llama 3, Mistral, Qwen) for sensitive contracts
  • Email tool configured for notifications
  • Document management integration (optional) - SharePoint, Google Drive, etc.
For sensitive legal documents, we strongly recommend deploying a private model on your own infrastructure. This ensures contracts never leave your network and maintains attorney-client privilege.

Architecture

The compliance review workflow uses parallel analysis with RAG-powered policy checks:
Trigger (Upload contract document)

Document Extraction Agent (extract text, identify clauses)

Parallel Analysis (3 specialist agents)
    ├── Branch 1: Clause Analysis Agent (identify and categorize clauses)
    ├── Branch 2: Compliance Check Agent with RAG (check against policies)
    └── Branch 3: Risk Assessment Agent (evaluate risks)

Review Synthesis Agent (compile findings into report)

Condition Node: Issues found?
    ├── YES → Human Task (legal review required)
    └── NO → Auto-approve + Notify

Email Notification (send compliance report)

Why this architecture works

Accurate Compliance

RAG grounds compliance checks in actual policies, preventing hallucinated requirements

Comprehensive Analysis

Three parallel specialist agents analyze different dimensions simultaneously

Private & Secure

Deploy on your infrastructure to maintain confidentiality and attorney-client privilege

Audit-Ready Reports

Structured reports with clause citations and policy references for compliance audits

Step-by-step build

1

Create compliance policy knowledge base

Build a knowledge base of your compliance policies and standards.Gather policy documents:
  1. Company Contract Standards
    • Payment terms policy (e.g., Net 30, no upfront payments >20%)
    • Liability limits (e.g., cap at contract value, no unlimited liability)
    • IP ownership requirements
    • Termination clause requirements
    • Indemnification standards
    • Data protection requirements
    • Warranty limitations
  2. Regulatory Compliance Guides
    • GDPR compliance checklist for contracts
    • HIPAA requirements for healthcare data
    • SOX requirements for financial controls
    • Industry-specific regulations (finance, healthcare, etc.)
    • Data residency requirements
    • Cross-border data transfer requirements
  3. Standard Clause Library
    • Approved confidentiality clauses
    • Standard limitation of liability language
    • IP assignment clauses
    • Termination for convenience clauses
    • Dispute resolution clauses
    • Force majeure clauses
  4. Risk Assessment Framework
    • Financial risk thresholds
    • Legal risk categories (low, medium, high, critical)
    • Operational risk indicators
    • Reputational risk factors
    • Risk mitigation requirements
Create the knowledge base:
  1. Navigate to Knowledge BasesCreate New
  2. Name: “Contract Compliance Policies”
  3. Upload documents:
    • Company_Contract_Standards.pdf
    • GDPR_Compliance_Checklist.pdf
    • HIPAA_Contract_Requirements.pdf
    • Standard_Clauses_Library.pdf
    • Risk_Assessment_Framework.pdf
    • IP_and_Confidentiality_Policy.pdf
  4. Configure chunking:
    • Strategy: Automatic or semantic (clause-based)
    • Chunk size: 500-1000 tokens
    • Overlap: 100 tokens
  5. Add metadata:
    • Policy type (e.g., “payment”, “liability”, “data-protection”)
    • Regulatory authority (e.g., “GDPR”, “HIPAA”, “internal”)
    • Effective date
    • Severity (e.g., “mandatory”, “recommended”, “best-practice”)
  6. Wait for processing to complete
Effective policy document structure:
# Payment Terms Policy

## Policy Statement
All vendor contracts must adhere to company payment standards to maintain healthy cash flow and vendor relationships.

## Requirements (MANDATORY)

### Standard Payment Terms
- **Default:** Net 30 from invoice date
- **Maximum:** Net 45 (requires CFO approval)
- **No upfront payments** exceeding 20% of contract value
- **Milestone-based payments** preferred for contracts >$100K

### Prohibited Terms
- ❌ Payment due upon receipt (Net 0)
- ❌ Upfront payment >20% without deliverable
- ❌ Payment before services rendered (except deposits ≤20%)
- ❌ Automatic renewal without 90-day opt-out

## Approval Requirements
- Net 30: Auto-approved
- Net 31-45: Requires CFO approval
- Net 45+: Requires CFO + CEO approval
- Upfront >20%: Requires CFO approval + business justification

## Risk Implications
- **High Risk:** Upfront payments with no deliverable (vendor may not deliver)
- **Medium Risk:** Net 60+ terms (cash flow impact)
- **Low Risk:** Standard Net 30 terms

## Exceptions Process
If business needs require exception to this policy:
1. Document business justification
2. Submit exception request to Legal & Finance
3. Obtain required approvals
4. Note exception in contract review documentation

## Related Policies
- See also: Vendor Management Policy
- See also: Financial Controls Policy
- See also: Contract Approval Matrix

---
Policy Owner: CFO
Last Updated: January 2026
Next Review: January 2027
This structure helps RAG retrieve specific requirements and their severity.
2

Create the document extraction agent

Build an agent to extract and structure contract content.Agent configuration:Name: Contract Extraction Agent Model: GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, or private model (Llama 3, Qwen)Persona:
You are a legal document analyst specializing in contract extraction and structuring.

Your task is to extract and identify key components from a contract:

1. **Document Metadata**
   - Contract title
   - Parties involved (company names, roles: vendor/customer/partner)
   - Effective date and contract duration
   - Contract value (if specified)
   - Jurisdiction and governing law

2. **Key Clauses** (identify and extract):
   - Payment terms
   - Liability and indemnification
   - Intellectual property rights
   - Confidentiality and NDA provisions
   - Termination conditions
   - Warranties and representations
   - Dispute resolution
   - Data protection and privacy
   - Service level agreements (SLAs)
   - Renewal and auto-renewal terms

3. **Document Structure**
   - Number of sections/articles
   - Presence of schedules/exhibits
   - Amendment or addendum references

4. **Preliminary Flags**
   - Unusual or non-standard clauses
   - Missing standard clauses
   - Ambiguous language
   - Cross-references to external documents

Output structured JSON:
{
  "metadata": {
    "title": "...",
    "parties": [{"name": "...", "role": "vendor"}],
    "effective_date": "...",
    "contract_value": "$...",
    "duration": "...",
    "jurisdiction": "..."
  },
  "clauses": {
    "payment_terms": "...",
    "liability": "...",
    "ip_rights": "...",
    "confidentiality": "...",
    "termination": "...",
    "warranties": "...",
    "dispute_resolution": "...",
    "data_protection": "...",
    "sla": "...",
    "renewal": "..."
  },
  "structure": {
    "sections": 12,
    "exhibits": ["Schedule A - Pricing"],
    "amendments": []
  },
  "preliminary_flags": [
    "Non-standard liability cap (uncapped)",
    "Missing data protection clause"
  ]
}

Be thorough and precise. Extract exact language for important clauses.
Configuration:
  • Temperature: 0.1 (very low for accurate extraction)
  • Structured output: Enabled (JSON schema)
  • Max tokens: 4000 (for long contracts)
  • Timeout: 60 seconds
3

Create the three specialist analysis agents

Build agents for clause analysis, compliance checking, and risk assessment.

1. Clause Analysis Agent

Name: Clause Categorization Agent Model: GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, or private modelPersona:
You are a legal analyst specializing in contract clause analysis.

Given extracted contract clauses, analyze each for:

1. **Categorization**
   - Standard vs. non-standard
   - Favorable vs. unfavorable vs. neutral (from company perspective)
   - Complete vs. incomplete (missing details)

2. **Specific Clause Analysis**

   **Payment Terms:**
   - Payment timeline (Net 30, 60, etc.)
   - Upfront payment percentage
   - Milestone-based or time-based
   - Late payment penalties
   - Currency and exchange rate handling

   **Liability:**
   - Liability cap (amount or formula)
   - Unlimited liability? (flag as high risk)
   - Exclusions from liability
   - Indemnification obligations (mutual or one-way?)

   **IP Rights:**
   - Who owns deliverables?
   - License grants and restrictions
   - Pre-existing IP protections
   - Open source implications

   **Termination:**
   - Termination for convenience (allowed? notice period?)
   - Termination for cause (grounds specified?)
   - Post-termination obligations
   - Data return/destruction requirements

   **Data Protection:**
   - Data processing roles (controller/processor)
   - Sub-processor permissions
   - Data breach notification requirements
   - Data residency requirements
   - GDPR/HIPAA compliance language

3. **Comparison to Standards**
   - How does each clause compare to market standards?
   - What's unusual or concerning?

Output structured JSON with analysis of each clause type.

2. Compliance Check Agent (with RAG)

Name: Compliance Verification Agent Model: GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, or private model Knowledge Base: Contract Compliance Policies (RAG enabled)Persona:
You are a compliance officer verifying contracts against company policies and regulations.

Using the compliance policy knowledge base, check the contract for:

1. **Company Policy Compliance**
   For each policy area, retrieve relevant policy from KB and check contract:

   - Payment terms compliance
     → Retrieve: Payment Terms Policy
     → Check: Does contract meet payment standards?
     → Flag: Deviations from policy

   - Liability limits compliance
     → Retrieve: Liability Policy
     → Check: Is liability capped appropriately?
     → Flag: Unlimited or excessive liability

   - IP ownership compliance
     → Retrieve: IP Policy
     → Check: Do IP clauses protect company interests?
     → Flag: Unfavorable IP assignments

   - Data protection compliance
     → Retrieve: Data Protection Policy
     → Check: Are data protection requirements met?
     → Flag: Missing or inadequate data protections

   - Confidentiality compliance
     → Retrieve: Confidentiality Standards
     → Check: Is confidentiality adequate?
     → Flag: One-way or weak confidentiality

2. **Regulatory Compliance**
   Based on contract scope and data handling:

   - GDPR (if EU data involved)
     → Retrieve: GDPR Checklist
     → Verify: Required clauses present?

   - HIPAA (if healthcare data involved)
     → Retrieve: HIPAA Requirements
     → Verify: BAA language present?

   - SOX (if financial controls relevant)
     → Retrieve: SOX Controls
     → Verify: Audit rights and controls?

   - Industry-specific regulations
     → Check based on contract context

3. **Missing Required Clauses**
   Identify standard clauses that should be present but aren't:
   - Force majeure
   - Dispute resolution
   - Governing law
   - Assignment restrictions
   - Entire agreement clause

Output structured JSON:
{
  "policy_compliance": {
    "payment_terms": {
      "compliant": false,
      "policy_requirement": "Net 30, max Net 45 with CFO approval",
      "contract_terms": "Net 60",
      "deviation": "Exceeds maximum without approval",
      "severity": "MEDIUM",
      "policy_source": "Payment Terms Policy, Section 2.1"
    },
    "liability": { ... },
    "ip_rights": { ... },
    "data_protection": { ... }
  },
  "regulatory_compliance": {
    "gdpr": { ... },
    "hipaa": { ... }
  },
  "missing_clauses": [
    {
      "clause_type": "Force Majeure",
      "reason": "Standard protection against unforeseeable events",
      "severity": "LOW"
    }
  ],
  "overall_compliance": "NON_COMPLIANT",
  "critical_issues": [ ... ]
}

IMPORTANT: Always cite the specific policy document and section for each compliance check.
Configuration:
  • RAG enabled: Yes
  • Knowledge base: Contract Compliance Policies
  • Retrieval: 10 chunks, threshold 0.75
  • Temperature: 0.2

3. Risk Assessment Agent

Name: Contract Risk Assessor Model: GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, or private modelPersona:
You are a risk management specialist assessing contract risks.

Evaluate the contract across risk dimensions:

1. **Financial Risks**
   - Excessive liability exposure
   - Unfavorable payment terms (cash flow impact)
   - Uncapped indemnification obligations
   - Hidden costs or open-ended commitments
   - Currency fluctuation exposure

2. **Legal Risks**
   - Unfavorable jurisdiction or governing law
   - Difficult dispute resolution (expensive arbitration abroad)
   - Weak or missing IP protections
   - Compliance violations (GDPR, HIPAA breaches)
   - Unilateral amendment rights for counterparty

3. **Operational Risks**
   - Unrealistic SLAs or deliverables
   - Resource commitment beyond capacity
   - Dependency on counterparty (vendor lock-in)
   - Data security and privacy risks
   - Long contract duration without exit provisions

4. **Reputational Risks**
   - Association with controversial parties
   - Data breach liability and notification requirements
   - Public disclosure obligations
   - Quality or performance failures

For each identified risk:
- **Severity:** CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
- **Likelihood:** Very Likely, Likely, Possible, Unlikely
- **Risk Score:** Severity × Likelihood
- **Mitigation:** How to address or reduce this risk

Output structured JSON:
{
  "financial_risks": [ ... ],
  "legal_risks": [ ... ],
  "operational_risks": [ ... ],
  "reputational_risks": [ ... ],
  "overall_risk_level": "HIGH",
  "critical_risks": [
    {
      "risk": "Unlimited liability for data breaches",
      "severity": "CRITICAL",
      "likelihood": "POSSIBLE",
      "impact": "Potential exposure exceeding $10M",
      "mitigation": "Negotiate liability cap at contract value or $1M maximum"
    }
  ],
  "recommendation": "DO_NOT_SIGN | SIGN_WITH_CHANGES | ACCEPTABLE_WITH_APPROVAL | ACCEPTABLE"
}
4

Create the review synthesis agent

Build an agent to compile all analysis into a comprehensive report.Name: Compliance Review Coordinator Model: GPT-4 or Claude 3.5 SonnetPersona:
You are a senior legal and compliance officer synthesizing contract review findings.

You receive analysis from three specialist agents:
1. Clause Analysis
2. Compliance Check
3. Risk Assessment

Create a comprehensive compliance review report:

## Executive Summary
- Contract title and parties
- Overall recommendation: APPROVE | APPROVE_WITH_CONDITIONS | REJECT | REQUIRES_LEGAL_REVIEW
- Top 3 concerns
- Critical blockers (if any)

## Compliance Findings

### Policy Compliance
- Summary of compliance checks
- Non-compliant areas with policy citations
- Required approvals or exceptions

### Regulatory Compliance
- GDPR, HIPAA, or other regulatory checks
- Gaps or missing requirements
- Compliance risks

## Risk Analysis
- Overall risk level
- Critical and high risks
- Risk mitigation recommendations

## Clause-by-Clause Review
- Payment terms assessment
- Liability and indemnification review
- IP rights analysis
- Data protection evaluation
- Other key clauses

## Required Actions

### Critical Issues (must address before signing)
- List with specific recommendations

### Recommended Changes (should address)
- List with suggested revisions

### For Information (acceptable but note)
- List for awareness

## Approval Requirements
Based on findings, specify required approvals:
- Legal team review
- CFO approval (payment terms)
- CTO approval (technical commitments)
- CEO approval (high-risk contracts)
- Privacy officer approval (data processing)

## Next Steps
1. ...
2. ...

Output as Markdown for readability and as structured JSON for processing.
Configuration:
  • Temperature: 0.3
  • Max tokens: 3000
  • Structured output: Both Markdown and JSON
5

Build the compliance review workflow

Construct the complete workflow with all agents.Node 1: Trigger
  • Type: Manual Trigger, API Trigger, or Email Trigger
  • Inputs:
    • contract_document (PDF or DOCX file)
    • contract_name (text)
    • counterparty (text)
    • contract_type (dropdown: vendor, customer, partner, NDA, DPA, other)
    • contract_value (number, optional)
    • reviewer_name (text)
    • reviewer_email (text)
Node 2: Document Extraction Agent
  • Agent: Contract Extraction Agent
  • Input: {{trigger.contract_document}}
  • Output variable: extraction
Node 3: Parallel Analysis
  • Branch 1: Clause Analysis Agent
    • Input: {{extraction.output}}
    • Output: clause_analysis
  • Branch 2: Compliance Check Agent (with RAG)
    • Input: {{extraction.output}}
    • Enable RAG: Yes
    • Output: compliance_check
  • Branch 3: Risk Assessment Agent
    • Input: {{extraction.output}}
    • Output: risk_assessment
Node 4: Review Synthesis Agent
  • Agent: Compliance Review Coordinator
  • Inputs:
    Contract Name: {{trigger.contract_name}}
    Counterparty: {{trigger.counterparty}}
    Type: {{trigger.contract_type}}
    Value: {{trigger.contract_value}}
    
    Extracted Data: {{extraction.output}}
    Clause Analysis: {{clause_analysis.output}}
    Compliance Check: {{compliance_check.output}}
    Risk Assessment: {{risk_assessment.output}}
    
  • Output variable: review_report
Node 5: Condition - Issues Found?
  • Condition:
    {{review_report.overall_compliance}} == "NON_COMPLIANT"
    OR
    {{review_report.overall_risk_level}} == "CRITICAL" or "HIGH"
    OR
    {{compliance_check.critical_issues.length}} > 0
    
  • True branch: Human review required
  • False branch: Auto-approve (or lower-level approval)
Node 6a (True branch): Human Task - Legal Review
  • Title: Contract Compliance Review Required
  • Description:
    Contract: {{trigger.contract_name}}
    Counterparty: {{trigger.counterparty}}
    
    AI Compliance Review has flagged issues requiring legal review.
    
    {{review_report.executive_summary}}
    
    **Critical Issues:**
    {{review_report.critical_issues}}
    
    Please review the full compliance report and attached contract.
    
  • Assignee: Legal team
  • Attachments:
    • Original contract document
    • Full compliance review report (PDF)
  • Actions: Approve, Reject, Request Changes
Node 6b (False branch): Auto-Approve Notification
  • Email Tool
  • To: {{trigger.reviewer_email}}
  • Subject: Contract Compliance Review Complete - Approved
  • Body:
    Contract: {{trigger.contract_name}}
    Status: Approved (low-risk, compliant)
    
    The automated compliance review found no critical issues.
    
    Summary: {{review_report.executive_summary}}
    
    Full report attached.
    
    Next steps: Proceed with signature process.
    
Node 7: Final Notification
  • Email Tool (both branches converge here)
  • To: {{trigger.reviewer_email}}, CC: Legal team (if reviewed)
  • Subject:
    Compliance Review Complete: {{trigger.contract_name}}
    
  • Body:
    Contract Compliance Review - {{trigger.contract_name}}
    
    Counterparty: {{trigger.counterparty}}
    Reviewer: {{trigger.reviewer_name}}
    Review Date: {{$now}}
    
    {{#if human_task}}
    Status: Legal review completed
    Decision: {{human_task.decision}}
    {{else}}
    Status: Auto-approved (compliant, low-risk)
    {{/if}}
    
    {{review_report.output_markdown}}
    
    ---
    Full compliance report attached.
    Automated by MagOneAI Contract Compliance System
    
  • Attachments:
    • Compliance review report (PDF)
    • Original contract (PDF)
6

Test with sample contracts

Validate the workflow with various contract scenarios.Test Case 1: Compliant vendor contract
  • Sample: Standard vendor MSA with Net 30 terms, reasonable liability cap, clear IP rights
  • Expected:
    • Extraction: All key clauses identified correctly
    • Compliance: All policies met
    • Risk: LOW risk rating
    • Outcome: Auto-approved
  • Verify:
    • ✅ Accurate extraction
    • ✅ Compliance checks reference correct policies
    • ✅ Risk assessment is reasonable
    • ✅ Report is clear and actionable
    • ✅ Auto-approval workflow triggers
Test Case 2: Non-compliant contract (payment terms)
  • Sample: Contract with Net 90 payment terms (exceeds policy)
  • Expected:
    • Extraction: Payment terms extracted correctly
    • Compliance: Flagged as non-compliant (Net 90 > Net 45 max)
    • Policy citation: “Payment Terms Policy, Section 2.1”
    • Outcome: Escalated to CFO approval
  • Verify:
    • ✅ Payment terms flagged correctly
    • ✅ Policy citation is accurate
    • ✅ Severity marked appropriately
    • ✅ Human Task created with context
Test Case 3: High-risk contract (unlimited liability)
  • Sample: Contract with unlimited liability clause
  • Expected:
    • Extraction: Liability clause extracted
    • Compliance: Non-compliant with liability policy
    • Risk: CRITICAL risk (unlimited liability)
    • Outcome: Escalated to legal review
  • Verify:
    • ✅ Unlimited liability flagged as critical
    • ✅ Risk assessment explains exposure
    • ✅ Mitigation recommendations provided
    • ✅ Human Task assigned to legal team
Test Case 4: GDPR data processing agreement
  • Sample: DPA with GDPR requirements
  • Expected:
    • Extraction: Data protection clauses identified
    • Compliance: GDPR checklist verification
    • Risk: Data breach liability assessed
    • Outcome: Privacy officer approval required
  • Verify:
    • ✅ GDPR requirements checked against KB
    • ✅ Missing clauses identified (if any)
    • ✅ Data residency requirements verified
    • ✅ Appropriate routing to privacy officer
Test Case 5: Missing standard clauses
  • Sample: Contract missing force majeure, dispute resolution clauses
  • Expected:
    • Extraction: Identifies missing sections
    • Compliance: Flags missing standard clauses
    • Risk: MEDIUM risk (missing protections)
    • Outcome: Legal review for clause additions
  • Verify:
    • ✅ Missing clauses detected
    • ✅ Recommended additions listed
    • ✅ Explanation of why clauses are important
For legal documents, accuracy is paramount. Always have a legal professional review AI-generated compliance reports initially to ensure they align with your legal standards and risk tolerance.
7

Deploy private model for sensitive contracts (optional)

For maximum security and confidentiality, deploy a private model.Why private models for legal documents:
  • Contracts never leave your infrastructure
  • Maintain attorney-client privilege
  • Comply with data residency requirements
  • Control over model and data
  • No vendor dependencies
Recommended private models:
  • Llama 3 70B (strong reasoning, good for legal analysis)
  • Qwen 2.5 72B (excellent multilingual, good for contracts)
  • Mistral Large (competitive with GPT-4, self-hostable)
Deployment approach:
  1. Infrastructure: Deploy on your own GPU servers or private cloud
  2. Model serving: Use vLLM, TensorRT-LLM, or HuggingFace TGI
  3. Integration: Connect to MagOneAI via API endpoint
  4. Configuration: Select private model in agent settings
  5. Testing: Validate performance on legal documents
Performance considerations:
  • Latency: Self-hosted may be slower (acceptable for async workflows)
  • Accuracy: Test thoroughly against your compliance policies
  • Cost: Higher upfront infra cost, lower per-usage cost
  • Maintenance: Requires ML ops expertise
You can use a hybrid approach: cloud models for low-sensitivity contracts, private models for high-value or highly confidential agreements.

Key concepts demonstrated

RAG with Policy Documents

Ground compliance checks in actual policies using knowledge base retrieval

Private Model Deployment

Deploy models on your infrastructure for maximum security and confidentiality

Parallel Analysis

Run three specialist agents simultaneously for comprehensive contract review

Human-in-the-Loop

Escalate high-risk or non-compliant contracts to legal experts with full context

Structured Compliance Reporting

Generate audit-ready reports with clause citations and policy references

Conditional Routing

Route based on compliance status and risk level for appropriate handling

Customization ideas

Extend your contract compliance workflow:
Automatically suggest contract edits:Redlining Agent:
  • Receives: Non-compliant clauses
  • Retrieves: Approved clause language from knowledge base
  • Generates: Suggested redline changes (track changes format)
  • Outputs: Marked-up document with proposed revisions
Implementation:
  • Add Redlining Agent after compliance check
  • Use RAG to retrieve approved clause templates
  • Generate Word document with track changes
  • Include justifications for each change
  • Attach to legal review task
Benefits:
  • Accelerate contract negotiation
  • Ensure consistent clause language
  • Reduce back-and-forth with legal team
  • Educate stakeholders on compliance requirements
Connect to your document repositories:Document management integration:
  • SharePoint, Google Drive, Box, Dropbox
  • Auto-trigger when contract uploaded to specific folder
  • Save compliance reports back to document library
  • Tag documents with compliance status and risk level
  • Create version history with review checkpoints
Workflow enhancements:
  • Trigger: Document uploaded to “Contracts Under Review” folder
  • Process: Run compliance review automatically
  • Output: Save report to same folder, tag document
  • Notification: Alert legal team if review required
  • Archive: Move to “Approved Contracts” folder after clearance
Benefits:
  • Seamless integration with existing processes
  • Centralized contract repository with compliance metadata
  • Easy audit trail and document tracking
Track and analyze contract changes:Version Comparison Workflow:
  • Input: Original contract + Amendment/revised version
  • Extract: Changes between versions
  • Analyze: Impact of changes on compliance and risk
  • Flag: Material changes requiring re-review
  • Report: Side-by-side comparison with risk assessment
Implementation:
  • Add Document Comparison Agent
  • Use diff algorithms to identify changes
  • Re-run compliance checks on changed clauses only
  • Highlight: New risks or compliance issues introduced
  • Output: Amendment impact report
Use cases:
  • Contract amendments and addenda
  • Renewal with modified terms
  • Vendor-proposed changes during negotiation
  • Annual contract updates
Tailor compliance checks by industry:Healthcare (HIPAA):
  • Business Associate Agreement (BAA) verification
  • PHI handling requirements
  • Data breach notification timelines
  • Subcontractor HIPAA compliance
  • Audit and inspection rights
Finance (SOX, PCI-DSS):
  • SOX controls for financial data
  • PCI-DSS for payment data handling
  • Audit rights and record retention
  • Third-party risk management
  • Financial controls verification
Technology (SaaS):
  • SLA verification (uptime, support response times)
  • Data portability and export rights
  • API access and integration rights
  • Scaling and usage limits
  • Open source licensing compliance
Implementation:
  • Create industry-specific knowledge bases
  • Add specialized compliance agents per industry
  • Route based on contract type or industry tag
  • Include industry best practices and benchmarks
Extend beyond initial review to full lifecycle:Pre-signature:
  • Compliance review (this workflow)
  • Redlining and negotiation tracking
  • Approval routing
Post-signature:
  • Extract key dates (renewal, termination notice deadlines)
  • Set calendar reminders for important dates
  • Monitor compliance with ongoing obligations
  • Track deliverables and SLA compliance
Renewal management:
  • Alert 90 days before renewal
  • Re-review contract for continued compliance
  • Compare with current policies (may have updated)
  • Recommend renewal, renegotiation, or termination
Implementation:
  • Add workflow triggers for contract milestones
  • Integrate with calendar and task management
  • Create compliance monitoring sub-workflows
  • Build renewal review automation
Improve extraction accuracy with trained models:Approach:
  • Train a clause classification model on your contracts
  • Fine-tune on your specific contract types and language
  • Achieve higher accuracy than generic LLMs
Implementation:
  • Collect 100-500 sample contracts (annotated)
  • Label key clauses and clause types
  • Fine-tune a model (BERT, RoBERTa, or LegalBERT)
  • Deploy as pre-processing before LLM analysis
  • Use extracted clauses as structured input to analysis agents
Benefits:
  • More accurate clause identification
  • Faster processing (lighter model for extraction)
  • Better handling of non-standard contract formats
  • Improved consistency across reviews
Tools:
  • LegalBERT (legal domain pre-trained)
  • Longformer (handles long documents)
  • Custom fine-tuned models
Create negotiation guidance based on past deals:Contract Playbook KB:
  • Past negotiation outcomes (what we accepted/rejected)
  • Fallback positions by clause type
  • Approved alternative clause language
  • Decision trees for common scenarios
  • Escalation thresholds
Playbook Agent:
  • Receives: Non-compliant or risky clause
  • Retrieves: Past similar situations and outcomes
  • Suggests: Negotiation strategy and alternative language
  • Estimates: Likelihood of acceptance based on history
Implementation:
  • Create knowledge base of negotiation playbooks
  • Add Negotiation Advisor Agent
  • Enable RAG on playbook KB
  • Include in compliance report: suggested negotiation approach
  • Track outcomes to improve playbook over time
Benefits:
  • Consistent negotiation positions
  • Faster deal cycles (clear guidance)
  • Capture institutional knowledge
  • Reduce legal bottlenecks

Example compliance report

Here’s what a complete compliance review looks like:
# Contract Compliance Review Report

**Contract:** Software Development Services Agreement
**Counterparty:** Acme Software Solutions Inc.
**Contract Type:** Vendor Agreement
**Contract Value:** $250,000
**Review Date:** February 10, 2026
**Reviewer:** Sarah Chen, Procurement Manager

---

## Executive Summary

**Recommendation:** ⚠️ **SIGN WITH CHANGES** - Legal review and negotiation required

This contract requires modifications before signature. While the overall structure is sound, several clauses deviate from company policy and introduce unacceptable risks that must be addressed.

**Top 3 Concerns:**
1. **Payment terms (Net 60)** exceed company policy maximum without CFO approval
2. **Unlimited liability** for data breaches creates unacceptable financial risk
3. **Missing GDPR data processing clauses** create regulatory compliance risk

**Critical Blockers:** 1 (Unlimited liability must be capped)

---

## Compliance Findings

### Company Policy Compliance

#### ❌ Payment Terms - NON-COMPLIANT
- **Policy Requirement:** Net 30 standard, Net 45 maximum with CFO approval
- **Contract Terms:** Net 60 from invoice date
- **Deviation:** Exceeds maximum allowed payment terms
- **Severity:** MEDIUM
- **Required Action:** Negotiate to Net 30, or obtain CFO exception approval for Net 60
- **Policy Source:** Payment Terms Policy, Section 2.1, Updated January 2026

#### ❌ Liability Cap - NON-COMPLIANT
- **Policy Requirement:** Liability capped at contract value or $1M, whichever is greater
- **Contract Terms:** Unlimited liability for data breaches and security incidents
- **Deviation:** No liability cap for data-related claims
- **Severity:** CRITICAL
- **Required Action:** MUST negotiate liability cap before signing
- **Policy Source:** Vendor Risk Management Policy, Section 4.3

#### ✅ IP Rights - COMPLIANT
- **Policy Requirement:** All deliverables owned by company, vendor retains pre-existing IP
- **Contract Terms:** Section 7 assigns all work product IP to company, vendor keeps background IP
- **Status:** Compliant with IP ownership policy
- **Policy Source:** Intellectual Property Policy, Section 3.2

#### ⚠️ Confidentiality - PARTIALLY COMPLIANT
- **Policy Requirement:** Mutual NDA with 5-year term, return/destruction upon termination
- **Contract Terms:** Mutual NDA with 3-year term, destruction upon termination
- **Deviation:** Shorter term than standard (3 vs. 5 years)
- **Severity:** LOW
- **Recommendation:** Request 5-year term or accept 3-year with documentation
- **Policy Source:** Confidentiality Standards, Section 2.4

### Regulatory Compliance

#### ❌ GDPR - GAPS IDENTIFIED
**Requirement:** GDPR-compliant data processing agreement if handling EU personal data

**Findings:**
- ✅ Data processor relationship defined (Section 9)
- ❌ Missing: Sub-processor notification and approval requirements
- ❌ Missing: Data subject rights assistance obligations
- ❌ Missing: Data breach notification timeline (must be 72 hours)
- ❌ Missing: Data transfer mechanisms (SCCs or adequacy decision)

**Risk:** GDPR non-compliance exposes company to fines up to 4% of global revenue

**Required Action:** Add GDPR DPA addendum with required clauses

**Policy Source:** GDPR Compliance Checklist, Sections 3.1-3.5

#### ✅ SOX Controls - NOT APPLICABLE
This contract does not involve financial reporting systems or controls.

---

## Risk Analysis

### Overall Risk Level: 🔴 **HIGH**

### Critical Risks

**1. Unlimited Liability for Data Breaches**
- **Severity:** CRITICAL
- **Likelihood:** POSSIBLE (data processing involved)
- **Potential Impact:** Unlimited financial exposure; potential claims exceeding $10M
- **Mitigation:** Negotiate liability cap at $1M or contract value ($250K), whichever is greater
- **Clause Reference:** Section 10.2

**2. GDPR Non-Compliance**
- **Severity:** HIGH
- **Likelihood:** LIKELY (vendor will process EU customer data)
- **Potential Impact:** Regulatory fines, contract invalidity, customer trust loss
- **Mitigation:** Add compliant GDPR DPA as addendum; ensure vendor GDPR certification
- **Clause Reference:** Section 9 (incomplete)

### High Risks

**3. Extended Payment Terms (Cash Flow Impact)**
- **Severity:** MEDIUM
- **Likelihood:** CERTAIN (contract term is Net 60)
- **Potential Impact:** $250K tied up for additional 30 days vs. policy; cash flow strain
- **Mitigation:** Negotiate to Net 30; or obtain CFO approval with business justification
- **Clause Reference:** Section 4.1

### Medium Risks

**4. Weak Termination for Convenience**
- **Severity:** MEDIUM
- **Likelihood:** UNLIKELY (project likely to complete)
- **Potential Impact:** 90-day notice required; difficult to exit if performance issues
- **Mitigation:** Negotiate 30-day termination for convenience; or add performance-based termination
- **Clause Reference:** Section 11.2

---

## Clause-by-Clause Review

### Payment Terms (Section 4)
- **Terms:** Net 60 from invoice date; milestones: 30% upfront, 40% at UAT, 30% at go-live
- **Assessment:** Upfront payment (30%) is acceptable per policy (under 40%); Net 60 exceeds policy
- **Action:** Negotiate to Net 30

### Liability and Indemnification (Section 10)
- **General Liability:** Capped at contract value ($250K) ✅
- **Data Breach Liability:** UNLIMITED ❌ CRITICAL ISSUE
- **Indemnification:** Mutual indemnification for third-party claims ✅
- **Action:** Must cap data breach liability before signing

### Intellectual Property (Section 7)
- **Work Product:** All deliverables owned by company ✅
- **Background IP:** Vendor retains ownership, grants license to company ✅
- **Open Source:** Vendor must disclose and obtain approval ✅
- **Assessment:** Compliant and favorable

### Data Protection (Section 9)
- **Data Processing Role:** Vendor is data processor ✅
- **Security Measures:** ISO 27001 certified, encryption at rest and in transit ✅
- **GDPR Clauses:** INCOMPLETE - missing key requirements ❌
- **Action:** Add GDPR DPA addendum

### Termination (Section 11)
- **For Cause:** Either party, 30-day cure period ✅
- **For Convenience:** 90-day notice by either party ⚠️ (prefer 30 days)
- **Post-Termination:** Data return/destruction, IP transition ✅
- **Assessment:** Acceptable but lengthy termination notice

### Warranties (Section 8)
- **Workmanship:** 90-day warranty on deliverables ✅
- **Non-Infringement:** Vendor warrants no IP infringement ✅
- **Performance:** Meets specifications or remediation ✅
- **Assessment:** Standard and acceptable

### Dispute Resolution (Section 12)
- **Governing Law:** Delaware law ✅
- **Disputes:** Mediation, then binding arbitration ✅
- **Venue:** Delaware arbitration (JAMS rules) ✅
- **Assessment:** Favorable jurisdiction and reasonable process

---

## Required Actions

### Critical Issues (MUST address before signing)

1. **Cap data breach liability**
   - Current: Unlimited
   - Required: Cap at $1M or contract value, whichever is greater
   - **Negotiation Language:** "Notwithstanding Section 10.1, liability for claims arising from data breaches or security incidents shall be capped at the greater of (i) total fees paid under this Agreement or (ii) $1,000,000."

2. **Add GDPR data processing addendum**
   - Include sub-processor controls
   - Data subject rights assistance
   - 72-hour breach notification
   - Standard Contractual Clauses (if EU transfers)
   - **Recommended:** Use company's standard GDPR DPA template

### Recommended Changes (SHOULD address)

3. **Negotiate payment terms to Net 30**
   - Current: Net 60
   - Preferred: Net 30
   - Fallback: Obtain CFO exception approval for Net 60

4. **Reduce termination notice period**
   - Current: 90 days for convenience
   - Preferred: 30 days
   - Rationale: More flexibility to exit if performance issues

5. **Extend confidentiality term to 5 years**
   - Current: 3 years
   - Company standard: 5 years
   - Lower priority but preferred

### For Information (acceptable but note)

6. **90-day warranty period**
   - Company typically prefers 1 year
   - 90 days is acceptable for this contract value
   - Recommend extended warranty for mission-critical systems

---

## Approval Requirements

Based on identified issues, the following approvals are required:

-**Legal Team Review** - REQUIRED (liability and GDPR issues)
-**CFO Approval** - REQUIRED (if Net 60 payment terms retained)
- ⚠️ **Privacy Officer Review** - RECOMMENDED (GDPR DPA review)
- ⚠️ **Procurement Approval** - REQUIRED (contract value >$100K)

**Estimated Negotiation Time:** 1-2 weeks for changes and approvals

---

## Next Steps

1. **Legal team to draft negotiation positions** for critical issues (liability cap, GDPR DPA)
2. **Send redlined contract to vendor** with proposed changes
3. **Schedule negotiation call** to discuss payment terms and data protection
4. **Obtain CFO exception approval** if Net 60 terms are accepted
5. **Final legal review** of negotiated contract before signature
6. **Route for signature** once all critical issues resolved

---

## Appendix: Policy Citations

All compliance checks reference the following policies:
- Payment Terms Policy, Version 2.1, Effective January 2026
- Vendor Risk Management Policy, Version 3.0, Effective November 2025
- Intellectual Property Policy, Version 1.5, Effective March 2025
- Confidentiality Standards, Version 2.0, Effective June 2025
- GDPR Compliance Checklist, Version 4.2, Effective December 2025

---

**Report Generated:** February 10, 2026 at 10:45 AM
**Automated by:** MagOneAI Contract Compliance System
**Review ID:** CR-2026-0142

Measuring success

Track these metrics to demonstrate value: Efficiency metrics:
  • Time to complete compliance review (AI vs. manual)
  • Number of contracts reviewed per week
  • % of contracts auto-approved (low-risk)
  • Legal team time saved
Quality metrics:
  • Compliance issue detection rate
  • False positive rate (flagged but not actually issues)
  • Consistency of reviews across reviewers
  • Audit findings related to contracts
Risk metrics:
  • % of contracts with critical risks identified
  • Number of non-compliant contracts prevented from signature
  • Financial exposure avoided (liability caps negotiated)
  • Regulatory compliance rate
Business impact:
  • Contract cycle time reduction
  • Legal bottleneck reduction
  • Consistency across business units
  • Knowledge capture and reuse
Example success metrics after 6 months:
- 250 contracts reviewed
- Average review time: 15 minutes (vs. 4 hours manual)
- 42% auto-approved (low-risk, compliant)
- 58% escalated for legal review (with full analysis)
- Legal time saved: 900+ hours
- Critical risks identified and mitigated: 47
- Compliance issue detection: 183 policy deviations caught
- ROI: 15x (time saved + risk avoided)

Next steps

Now that you’ve built a contract compliance workflow, explore related cookbooks:
Need help customizing this for your specific compliance requirements, regulations, or contract types? Contact our solutions team for legal automation guidance.