Work Interleaf Recorded checks
Interleaf · Drafting checksTwo of Interleaf's drafting checks ran on four made-up clauses covering notice, a security incident, an indemnity and a liability cap. They flagged two gaps in the first draft and none after the edits. This page replays both results.
Prototype · two drafting checks recorded on September 19, 2026, replayed here
The assignment: after a reported security incident, a reviewer needs to know how Party A must give notice, and how the indemnity and the liability cap fit together.
The two checks flag a notice clause that doesn't point to how notice is delivered, and a liability limit that doesn't say how it relates to the indemnity.
Notices shall be delivered by email to the notice address designated by each party.
Party A shall provide written notice of a security incident within 24 hours.
Party A shall indemnify Party B against covered third-party claims, subject to a separate $300,000 limit.
Aggregate liability shall not exceed $100,000. Indemnification is addressed in Section 8.
Section 7 requires notice but doesn't say it must follow the delivery rules in Section 6. The check flags the missing link. Whether the general Notices section applies anyway is for the reviewer to decide.
Section 9 mentions indemnification without saying whether indemnity sits under that limit or outside it (a carveout). The reviewer needs to settle how the general limit relates to the separate indemnity limit in Section 8.
Human review is still required. What each finding leaves open is set out below.
Party A and Party B replace the record's original labels, Vendor and Customer. The rest of the clause wording and the findings are as recorded.
The switch only swaps between the two saved results. It sends no clause text anywhere, including to an AI service.
A fixed check spots the drafting pattern it was written for. It can't interpret the clause, check the facts, weigh the business tradeoff or sign off.
"Party A shall provide written notice of a security incident within 24 hours."
§ 6 sends notices by email to each party's designated notice address. § 7 sets a notice duty without pointing to it.
Rated medium. The edit adds "in accordance with the Notices article," and the same check then finds nothing. It picked that up from the wording alone.
And what starts the 24-hour clock. Even the revised clause leaves that open.
"Aggregate liability shall not exceed $100,000. Indemnification is addressed in Section 8."
§ 8 sets a separate $300,000 indemnity limit. § 9 mentions indemnification without saying whether indemnity sits under the general cap or is carved out of it.
Rated low. The edit excludes indemnification obligations from the cap and points them to the § 8 limit, and the check then finds nothing.
Which claims are covered, and whether the two limits reflect the allocation of risk the parties intended.
I decide what each project is for and check what comes back. I work with contracts, and Interleaf is my workspace for following a contract question across an agreement and back to the words that answer it, with the legal decisions left to the person reviewing it.
AI tools write the code. For this page, AI tools built the replay and ran the two drafting checks on clauses written for it.
This is the checks' own wording on the initial draft. "LoL" is the record's shorthand for limitation of liability. On the proposed edits, neither check returned anything.
"Section imposes a notice obligation but does not cross-reference the notice mechanics section." Suggested action: "Add a cross-reference to the Notices article or align delivery method with the notice section."
"Indemnification mentioned in LoL section without explicit carveout language." Suggested action: "Verify indemnity is carved out of the cap or subject to it explicitly."