Where expert review is non-negotiable, and how to document it so the process survives scrutiny.
Key takeaways
Change-of-control provisions, indemnification caps, unusual termination rights and anything touching regulatory approval should always get a qualified reviewer's eyes, regardless of how the AI scored them.
This isn't a lack of trust in the tool, it's an acknowledgment that some risks carry consequences too large to delegate entirely.
A defensible process records who reviewed a finding, when, and what they concluded, attached to the specific document and clause, not a general statement that “review was completed.”
This level of detail is what makes the process stand up if a deal is later questioned or audited.
Even documents the AI clears as low-risk deserve a periodic spot-check by a human reviewer, since no automated system has a zero error rate. A sampling protocol, say ten percent of cleared documents, catches this gap.
This step is inexpensive relative to the protection it provides.
Deciding sign-off requirements under deal pressure leads to shortcuts. Agreeing the checklist as a standing firm policy, before any particular deal, keeps the process consistent regardless of timeline pressure.
It also means the process doesn't need to be re-litigated with every new transaction.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself here.
