Screening contracts for deviations
About this source
Gen8
Source: Screening contracts for deviations
Managed AI service for SMEs. We set up, connect and manage; you stay in control.
© 2026 Gen8 VOF · Dutch Chamber of Commerce 92978789 · Delft
Capability · route: beta
Know where this contract differs from what you usually sign
Most contracts you receive look alike. The risk lies in the two or three clauses differing from what you normally accept. This workflow places a contract beside your standard terms and identifies the differences, so the reviewer starts where it matters.
- Scoping first, then a proposal
- EU hosting
- You stay in control
At a glance
Route: beta
Control: human approval
Systems: Email, document storage
What happens
From signal to proposal
You supply a contract together with your standard terms and usual agreements. The workflow reads the document and identifies the provisions for each topic: liability, notice period, payment terms, confidentiality, ownership of results, penalty clauses and governing law.
For each topic, you receive what this contract says, your standard and whether there is a deviation. Every finding references the clause it is based on, so the reviewer can go straight to the right place. The workflow gives no legal advice and draws no conclusion on whether you should sign.
Supply
The contract plus your standard terms and the boundaries you normally apply.
Read
For each topic, it identifies the agreed provisions with a reference to the clause.
Compare
What does this say, what is your standard, and is the difference large enough to report?
Findings
A list of deviations and missing topics, each with its location in the document.
Assessment
A person assesses, weighs and decides. The workflow signs nothing and gives no advice.
Limits
Where it stops
This is not legal advice and does not replace a lawyer. The workflow does not negotiate, send counterproposals or ever sign. It does not assess whether a deviation is acceptable: it only reports a difference from your standard. It cannot compare a topic absent from your standard either; it flags that as missing reference criteria. And because this workflow is still in beta, every finding should be reviewed.
Evidence
What we can demonstrate
This workflow appears as beta on the site: the setup works, but quality by contract type has not yet been measured across a series of documents. That is also why no figure is given for deviations found. Where contracts stay, who may view them and how processing and logging are arranged are covered under security and data.
Does this replace a lawyer?
No. It reduces the time needed to find where to look. What a deviation means and whether to accept it remain human judgments.
What if a topic is entirely absent from the contract?
It is flagged as a missing topic. A missing provision is often exactly what gets overlooked.
Why is this workflow marked beta?
Because quality by contract type has not yet been measured across enough documents. Until it is, we do not call it a proven route.
Where do the contracts stay?
In your own document storage. Processing takes place in the EU and every step is logged.