Summary memo
High items first, then medium, then low, with linked sources, the legal sources checked and a change table.
Word · 27 kBDownload
Contract redline review: what changed, and what it means legally
Compares two versions of a contract and rates every change high, medium or low for legal impact under Norwegian law, with Claude and sources from Lovkart.
This demo only shows what can be automated. It does not show how it should be done. Lawyers who specialise in this field are the right people to give the AI its instructions and to verify its output.
Demo
What the AI does, step by step
Step 1 of 9
Finds the right files
- Looks through your folder and works out which files are versions of the same contract, and which are appendices.
- Reads the version printed in the document itself, not just the file name or date.
- Proposes “latest against the previous version” and asks you to confirm.
Step 2 of 9
Asks about your situation
- Which side you’re on: the ratings depend on it.
- Why you’re reviewing: the new version before signing, adopting a new template, or checking an existing agreement against the new version.
- Which language you want the documents in.
Step 3 of 9
Protects your originals
- Copies the confirmed files into a separate workspace folder and works only on the copies.
- Records a fingerprint (hash) of each original, so you can prove later they weren’t touched.
Step 4 of 9
Gives the copies clear names
- Suggests consistent names (year, contract, part, old/new).
- Renames only the copies, and only if you agree.
Step 5 of 9
Finds every change
- Compares the versions paragraph by paragraph, including appendices, text boxes, headers and footers.
- Reads the unchanged clauses that a changed clause refers to, where conflicts often hide.
- Also tells you what did not change.
Step 6 of 9
Maps the law, then assesses each change
- Builds a legal map first: which laws may apply, whether they’re in force, and what Lovkart covers.
- Gives each separate duty or right its own item: the effect for your side, the legal basis and neutral points to consider.
- Looks up every provision in Lovkart before describing it, and links each one.
Step 7 of 9
Weighs each change
- Checks whether the contract or the law already covers the issue before rating it, and records the strongest counterpoint.
- Rates each item:
Step 8 of 9
Delivers Word documents
- Summary memo: high items first, then medium, then low, with linked sources, the legal sources checked, and a change table.
- Marked-up contract: tracked changes from the old to the new version, with a margin comment on each important change.
Step 9 of 9
Checks its own work
- Confirms the files open correctly, every high and medium item has a source, and the originals are unchanged.
- Ends with a short summary: the number of items per level and the main high ones.
What we compared
Two versions of SSA-L, the Norwegian government’s standard agreement for ongoing purchase of services over the internet (published by DFØ):
- Old: SSA-L 2018 (last updated May 2019): general terms and appendices
- New: SSA-L 2026: general terms and appendices
- Reviewed for
- The supplier
- Purpose
- Reviewing the new version before signing
- Documents in
- Norwegian (bokmål)
Contracts used in this demo
Current version (SSA-L 2026): SSA-L (Avtale om løpende tjenestekjøp) ↗
Earlier versions (2018 and 2017): Tidlegare versjonar av staten sine standardavtalar ↗
What we found
0high
6medium
5low
Main finding: no change was rated high. The medium ones are the supplier’s new data duties in clause 7.2: the customer’s access to the data at all times, hand-over in an open, machine-readable format at termination, and deletion of all the supplier’s own copies with no express exception. Several could become high depending on facts the template does not show.
Only clause 7.2 changed in substance. The rest of the general terms is identical word for word; in the appendices the only substantive addition is a new field in appendix 1 for clause 7.2.
- Medium 1The customer gets the rights to data collected, generated or arising in the service
- Medium 2The customer must have access to the data “at all times”
- Medium 3Data must be made available in an open, machine-readable format at termination
- Medium 4Duty to delete all of the supplier’s own copies of the customer’s data at termination
- Medium 5New right to use anonymised data about the customer’s use
- Medium 6The customer can specify other data rules in appendix 1
- Low 1The supplier has “access and a right of use” to the extent necessary
- Low 2Use of data from the set-up (test results, error logs etc.)
- Low 3Heading and terminology: “ownership of data” becomes “rights to data”
- Low 4The footer still says “2018”
- Low 5Editorial changes in the appendices and tables of contents
What it delivered
Three Word files, in Norwegian as chosen in step 2.
00_Summary_legal_impact.docx
Marked-up general terms
The 2026 text with tracked changes from 2018, and 10 margin comments.
Word · 95 kBDownload
Marked-up appendices
Appendices 1–9 with tracked changes from 2018, and 2 margin comments.
Word · 161 kBDownload
Read the conversation (PDF)
Try it on your own contracts
We used Agent Skills ↗ in this demo. A skill is a saved set of instructions that teaches AI how to do a specific task, step by step. You set it up once and reuse it for routine tasks.
Use the skill
The skill we used in this demo, for Claude. Link the folder with your contract files and write: “Compare the latest version of this contract with the previous one.”
Or use it as project instructions
The same review as plain instructions. Paste them into a project’s instructions, and every chat in that project will follow them.
You can always tailor them to your needs with the instructions from experts who are specialized in the subject. Then describe your routine to your AI, and it will create Skills for you. Both need Lovkart connected: connect your AI.
P.S. We are working on a data desensitization tool that runs on your local computer. Contact us if you have specific needs.
The ratings are from the supplier’s side; reviewing for the customer would give different ratings. The results are information from legal sources, not legal advice. A lawyer should review decisions that matter.