An AI redline review agent reads the returned draft with its tracked changes and produces a clear list of what was added, deleted or reworded, clause by clause.
A vendor returns the draft with tracked changes.
The agent separates real edits from formatting.
Edits are labelled by clause and by direction of risk.
A short change summary is produced for each clause.
The negotiator accepts, rejects or counters.
The round's changes and decisions are recorded.
It compares each change with your playbook and library, and marks it as within policy, outside policy or needing a decision.
It gives the reviewer a short summary of the changes that change meaning, and sets aside cosmetic edits.
A returned draft can carry dozens of edits, and the ones that shift risk are often small. Reviewers read every line, and the few important changes are easy to miss in the noise.
A single changed word can reverse a clause among many harmless edits.
Edits made without tracking only show up on a full comparison.
A change must be read against the rest of the agreement to see its effect.
Reviewers must recall what the playbook says about each clause.
Slow review holds up the deal and the business.
The agent compares the returned draft with your last version, catching both tracked and untracked changes.
Changes are grouped under the clause they affect and described in plain language.
Each change is tested against the playbook and approved wording, and marked acceptable, not acceptable or unclear.
Changes that alter risk, cost or obligations are placed first, and wording tidy-ups are listed last.
The agent produces a summary with the key changes and suggested responses for the lawyer to review.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Finding changes | Reviewers read the whole draft to find edits. | Agent lists only the substantive edits. |
| Hidden edits | Untracked changes slip past review. | The returned text is compared with the last version we sent. |
| Impact | Reviewers judge each edit from scratch. | Each edit is labelled by clause and whom it favours. |
| Round history | Previous rounds are lost in email. | Each round is stored with its decisions. |
| Speed of reply | Reply waits for a lawyer to find time. | The negotiator starts from a summary, not a blank page. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Edit weakens our protection | Mark as unfavourable | Legal counsel |
| Edit is only formatting | Hide it from the list | None |
| Edit appears without tracking | Flag as an untracked change | Legal counsel |
| Edit reverses one of ours | Show our earlier text | Negotiator |
| Edit touches a core term | Escalate to legal | Legal counsel |
| Edit is acceptable under the playbook | Mark acceptable | Negotiator |
The agent compares it with our last version to rebuild the changes. The lawyer is told the vendor did not track them.
They are grouped as one linked change. The negotiator decides how to answer them together.
Layout changes are set aside and text changes compared. The lawyer spot checks the comparison.
The agent merges the lists and shows overlaps. The negotiator settles conflicts.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Run comparisons on live redlines and check against reviewer notes.
Let negotiators start from the change summary.
Label edits by risk and review the labels with legal.
Store every round and decision in the contract file.
Turnaround = time the reviewed draft is returned − time the counterparty's draft was received, averaged per roundTrack it by round and by deal type. Long turnarounds on early rounds suggest a lack of clear positions.
Quick answers to what people ask most about redline review.
Book a demoIt is the reading of tracked changes that a counterparty makes to a contract draft, to decide which to accept, reject or counter. It shows what has really changed.
Yes. It compares the full text of the new version with your last one, so edits made without tracking are listed.
No. It summarises and rates them against your positions. Lawyers make the decisions.
It uses the playbook and clause library your legal team provides. Without them it can summarise changes but not rate them.
Clause suggestion is the practice of proposing contract clauses that a draft lacks or states weakly, based on the type of deal and the company's policy.
→A fallback clause is pre-approved alternative wording a team may offer when a counterparty will not accept its preferred clause, usually ranked from least to most concessive.
→Clause library lookup is the task of finding the approved wording for a contract topic, such as limitation of liability or data processing, from a company's maintained clause bank.
→Playbook compliance is the check that a contract draft follows the positions a company has set for each clause, such as acceptable liability caps, governing law or payment terms.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
