Interactive controls are loading. Phone and email links are available.

Skip to main content
Yes AI - AI Solutions Australia

AI-assisted contract review planning

Plan contract review with source evidence and legal oversight

Yes AI can help scope how selected contract text is extracted, compared with an approved playbook and routed to a responsible reviewer. A qualified lawyer retains every legal interpretation, risk decision and contract approval.

Discuss your workflow (03) 9003 0111

30-minute consultation: free for businesses with 20+ full-time staff; otherwise AUD200 including GST.

What the workflow can include

01

Define one review question

Choose the contract type, business process and fields the workflow should assist with. Record who owns the playbook, who may upload documents and which decisions require a qualified lawyer. A broad request to find every risk is not an acceptance criterion.

02

Keep every result tied to its source

Preserve the authoritative file, version, page or clause reference and the exact text supporting an extraction. Show when a source is missing or unreadable. A summary should not replace the contract or hide wording that changes the legal effect.

03

Separate extraction from legal assessment

A tool may draft a field or flag a playbook difference for review. It must not present a risk score, fairness finding, enforceability view or recommended signature as a legal conclusion. Route uncertainty and material terms to the authorised reviewer.

04

Review confidentiality, privacy and security

Classify the documents and data before selecting a provider. Confirm permitted use, access, processing and storage locations, retention, deletion, onward providers and model-training terms. Include legal privilege and professional duties in the qualified review where relevant.

05

Control integrations and deadlines

Identify the authoritative repository and version before creating exports, tasks or reminders. Test duplicate documents, amendments, unreadable pages, incorrect dates, failed writes and revoked access. A reminder must retain its source clause and responsible owner.

06

Measure a bounded pilot

Use authorised representative documents and reviewer-approved reference answers. Measure correct and missed fields, unsupported outputs, source-reference accuracy, corrections and review time. Estimate cost from measured usage and staff effort without assuming a fixed saving or return.

Fictional contract-review record

An extracted field waiting for source and legal review

This fixed example contains no uploaded contract or client data and makes no provider request. It creates no legal finding, risk score, deadline reminder or connected-system write.

Record ID
SAMPLE-CONTRACT-001
Document type
Fictional supplier agreement
Source
Demonstration text only
Requested field
Renewal notice period
Draft extraction
30 calendar days
Source reference
Example clause 8.2, source not attached
Review status
Awaiting qualified legal review
Legal conclusion
None made

Start with current official guidance

The ACCC explains the current unfair contract term rules, gives examples and states that only courts make final decisions about whether a term is unfair. A software flag is a review prompt, not that decision. Read the ACCC contracts guidance.

The OAIC says organisations selecting commercially available AI products should complete due diligence, consider privacy and security risks and embed human oversight. Contract data needs a reviewed purpose and data flow before upload. Read the OAIC AI privacy guidance.

The Australian Signals Directorate advises cloud consumers to assess a provider and make a risk-informed authorisation decision. Apply that review to any proposed contract repository or AI service. Read ASD cloud assessment guidance.

Official sources checked 11 September 2026. This page provides workflow-planning information and no legal advice. Confirm the current law and the actual contract with a qualified Australian lawyer.

Agree the scope before connecting data

Start with a defined workflow and representative examples. The proposal should identify the software, responsibilities, access and acceptance checks. Delivery time and price depend on that scope.

  • Name the contract type, review question, playbook owner and qualified legal reviewer.
  • Define the authoritative document, version, source reference and required fields.
  • Review confidentiality, privacy, provider use, retention, access and deletion before upload.
  • Test misses, incorrect extractions, unsupported answers, amendments, outages and failed writes.

Questions about ai-assisted contract review planning

What does AI-assisted contract review planning cover?

We can scope how an approved contract, playbook and review request move through extraction, source checking, exception handling and qualified legal review. The scope can include access, version control, review status, reminders and exports. It does not provide legal advice, decide whether a term is enforceable or approve a contract.

Can software decide whether a clause is risky or unfair?

No. A configured tool may compare text with an approved playbook or surface a clause for review, but the label depends on the source document, instructions and context. The ACCC states that only a court can make a final decision that a contract term is unfair. A qualified Australian lawyer should assess the actual agreement and circumstances.

Which contract types and fields can be reviewed?

That depends on the selected product, document quality, contract structure, languages, approved playbook and required fields. Start with one defined contract type and a small set of fields such as parties, dates, notice periods or liability provisions. Support for a familiar contract name does not establish accuracy on your documents.

How should extraction accuracy be measured?

Use authorised representative contracts with a reference set prepared or checked by responsible reviewers. Measure each required field, missed clauses, incorrect extractions, unsupported answers and source-reference quality. Keep results by contract type and version. Do not rely on a general accuracy percentage from another dataset or provider.

Can the workflow check Australian Consumer Law requirements?

It may help a reviewer locate configured wording or compare a clause with an approved checklist, but it cannot determine that a term is lawful, unfair or enforceable. Confirm which laws and contract protections apply to the parties and transaction. Use current ACCC guidance and qualified legal advice for the actual contract.

How should confidential and personal information be handled?

Before uploading contracts, identify confidential, privileged, personal and sensitive information and confirm whether the proposed use is authorised. Review the selected provider, access, storage and processing locations, retention, deletion, onward providers and model-training terms. The OAIC recommends due diligence, privacy controls and human oversight for commercially available AI products.

Can contract repositories, email or reminder systems be connected?

The exact product, edition, API, permissions and required operations need assessment. Define the authoritative document and version, test duplicate and failed uploads, and verify every extracted date against its source before creating a reminder. Keep a responsible owner and manual fallback for uncertain or failed writes.

How much is a consultation?

The standard consultation is 30 minutes. It is free for businesses with 20 or more full-time staff; otherwise it costs AUD200 including GST. The consultation identifies one proposed review workflow, its responsible reviewers and prerequisites. Implementation, software, legal advice and ongoing support are scoped separately.

Discuss requirementsData privacy questionsConsulting options