Prepare a contract for AI review
A request to explain a termination clause rarely needs the client's identity or an entire agreement. Create a review copy that preserves the relationships needed to interpret the wording, then check whether the remaining commercial terms are themselves confidential.
For Legal operations and contract reviewers
Synthetic example: comparing notice clauses
A fictional reviewer wants to compare two notice provisions. This is an illustrative preparation exercise, not a customer result or a claim that AI can determine the correct legal position.
What you are working with
- A DOCX agreement with party names repeated in definitions and signature blocks.
- A schedule containing contact addresses, named representatives and project references.
- Tracked changes and comments from an earlier negotiation.
A safer approach
- Create a separate excerpt using consistent Party A and Party B labels.
- Keep clause numbering, defined-term relationships and the relevant notice periods.
- Remove unnecessary schedules and inspect revisions, comments and document properties.
Expected outcome: The intended output is a list of textual differences with clause references for a human reviewer to check. It should not require identifying either party.
Work through the procedure
Define the comparison
Write down the exact clauses and question before preparing the upload. Include definitions or cross-references only where the interpretation depends on them. If the task requires confidential deal context that cannot be shared, use your approved internal review process instead.
Build a consistent review copy
Replace repeated party identifiers consistently and distinguish parties from their representatives. Check possessives, abbreviations, letterheads and signature blocks. Do not substitute different labels for the same party across schedules; inconsistent labels can reverse who owes an obligation.
Inspect the complete artifact
Review comments, tracked revisions, headers, footers and file properties using your document tools. Search the final copy for known synthetic identifiers and copy text from an exported PDF to inspect what remains extractable. A visually covered name is not sufficient evidence of removal.
Review the answer against the excerpt
Ask for citations to the supplied clause numbers and a list of missing context. Compare every claimed difference with the approved copy. If the assistant needs an omitted schedule, reassess that specific addition instead of uploading the whole agreement reflexively.
What to check before proceeding
1. Party identity
- Ready when
- Each party has one stable label throughout the excerpt.
- If the check fails
- Correct the labels and repeat the cross-reference check before sharing.
2. Residual information
- Ready when
- The final file has no unnecessary contacts, revision authors or negotiation comments.
- If the check fails
- Create a clean copy with approved document tools and inspect it again.
3. Interpretive usefulness
- Ready when
- The reviewer can follow obligations and references without the original identities.
- If the check fails
- Narrow the question or retain the work in an authorized environment.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Replacing names does not remove commercially sensitive terms, and distinctive transaction details can still identify the parties.
- Flattening or exporting a document may change numbering or lose definitions; confirm utility as well as removal.
Evaluate this workflow with Aona
Where Aona can help
Evaluate Aona's configured prompt and file policy using a synthetic contract on the actual upload path. DOCX, XLSX and PDF are supported formats, with differing provider and native coverage.
What to confirm
Aona is not a legal reviewer or an automatic detector of every privileged or confidential clause. Regional backend processing is part of its managed policy path; confirm the applicable processing scope before use.
Evaluating AI controls for client-document work?
Use a synthetic contract example to discuss the AI tool, document-handling controls and approval evidence your legal team needs. This is a workforce-security evaluation, not legal advice.